Can theory of nothing challenge God?
I'm fascinated with the theory of nothing because it has the potential to challenge God. (At least that's my observational opinion)
Following video with a bit of humor explains the theory of nothing pretty well
What I do not get clear is whether "nothing" also assumes absence of God?
And notion that nothing it self is something which sound contradictory.
We know God can be described and has properties, since nothing also excludes things such virtual particles and the laws physics which are not physical things therefore I guess nothing also means absence of God.
Following video is about creation out of nothing or something out of nothing:
What's interesting in this video is "we can't prove something out of nothing but it's plausible"
I would find something out of nothing more "plausible" if he just dint say that but OK.
I'm correlating "something out of nothing" to big bang.
Big bang is good theory about creation but not God, for example Big bang doesn't exclude probability of God because it doesn't say anything about what was there before big bang.
Something out of nothing however is much more aggressive in that definition of nothing also means absence of God, that is before something there was nothing, not even God.
On the other side proving or disproving something out of nothing is equally difficult as proving or disproving God.
Your opinions?
Following video with a bit of humor explains the theory of nothing pretty well
What I do not get clear is whether "nothing" also assumes absence of God?
And notion that nothing it self is something which sound contradictory.
We know God can be described and has properties, since nothing also excludes things such virtual particles and the laws physics which are not physical things therefore I guess nothing also means absence of God.
Following video is about creation out of nothing or something out of nothing:
What's interesting in this video is "we can't prove something out of nothing but it's plausible"
I would find something out of nothing more "plausible" if he just dint say that but OK.
I'm correlating "something out of nothing" to big bang.
Big bang is good theory about creation but not God, for example Big bang doesn't exclude probability of God because it doesn't say anything about what was there before big bang.
Something out of nothing however is much more aggressive in that definition of nothing also means absence of God, that is before something there was nothing, not even God.
On the other side proving or disproving something out of nothing is equally difficult as proving or disproving God.
Your opinions?
Comments (130)
Thank you for input, very useful!
I found some definition of philosophical nothing as follows:
Therefore philosophical nothing is not limited by absence of material things but anything that can be described, while scientific nothing deals strictly with material things.
If so, can we say absence of God is valid for philosophical nothing but not for scientific nothing? (Since God is not material thing, but it could be)
"If first there is nothing", notice that this is not saying anything. It's saying what is not (already coming from our knowledge of something). Don't use a mental image in place of the concept of nothing, because nothing as an idea has validity only when there is something as well. Is there is nothing at all, then this is outside of something and is worthless unless it does something to something.
My 2 cents
Well said, so nothing is not something and as such can't do anything to produce something.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I can understand vacuum to be "nothing" because that's absence of matter, but why would zero-point energy be considered "nothing"?
I suppose that energy is necessary for creation, in any case it sounds more realistic than "infinitely dense mass"
:up:
Think of it as an unscientific motive :wink:
Because why would scientist be bothered by God? as if the ultimate goal is to disprove God rather than discover creation - unscientific.
That's the problem with Krauss' theory of a "Universe From Nothing". His so-called "nothing" paradigm omits the metaphysical Bible-God, but retains such metaphysical "non-things" as Space-Time & Natural Laws & Quantum Fields. Those are all imaginary human ideas about the world, not empirical things in the world. So, he is attributing miraculous creative properties to those immaterial concepts, even as he dismisses the god-theory as a discredited ancient paradigm. However, I suspect that -- as a scientist -- he doesn't believe in philosophical Metaphysics. So, no problem. :joke:
PS___Ironically, Krauss is aware of an anomaly in the Cosmic Microwave Background, that seems to contradict the Copernican principle that there's nothing special about Earth relative to the whole cosmos. That recent discovery was labelled "The Axis of Evil" because the "plane" of the CMB, seems to align, for no apparent reason, with the "ecliptic" of our solar system. That astronomical fact does not fit into the conventional atheistic belief system of most cosmologists. Hence -- Evil. :sad:
Copernican Mediocrity :
[i]âThe "Axis of Evil" is a name given to an anomaly in astronomical observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The anomaly appears to give the plane of the Solar System and hence the location of Earth a greater significance than might be expected by chance â a result which has been claimed to be evidence of a departure from the Copernican principle. . . . "Â Â Â
"But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun â the plane of the earth around the sun â the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.â[/i]
___Lawrence Krauss     Cosmologist
The all-encompassing Vacuum, with un-bounded creative energy, that is capable of creating a world from "nothing", sounds like a modern version of an ancient non-anthro-morphic monotheistic God-Theory, such as the Hindu Brahman. That's also the god-model of Western Deism. :smile:
Brahman : the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world". . . . . the cause of all changes
Note -- Energy is assumed to be the cause of all physical changes in matter, yet is not a material substance itself.
Indeed, I find it simply put biased, it begs infinity which by it's nature can't lead to finite conclusions no matter how far you go.
Quoting theRiddler
Assume nobody assumes. :smile:
I don't think the theory of nothing really says much about whether "God" exists or not other than it may help explain the universe without using religion or "God" which may help undermine religion (or at least Abrahamic religions) in some way.
I could be wrong but I believe somewhere there is some kind of process theory or something like it that goes along the lines of this, that everything that exist is the result of some previous "process" which itself was created or the result of some other process and so on and so forth to some point to some indefinite past that we have no idea of. How this is even possible is basically left unexplained partly because it is more or less a given that we can only try our universe back to a certain time and the time beyond that the state of the world or universe is beyond our understanding. This concept of how things are basically states that it is virtually impossible for things to "pop" into existence without some pre-existing thing/process to create it and it is just as impossible for something to "pop" out of existence. However, this does not mean that things that we observe can't APPEAR to pop in and out of existence due to processes that we are not aware of.
If your having problems understanding a "process" you can think of it as any size body of matter/energy or whatever that exists in a state of flux. Take for example a match stick, it is in one state before it is lit and after you strike it, it, the effort to strike it, the air around, changes it to another state. The change of a unlit match to a lit one is a "process". When you look at things not as just matter but processes you have to pay a little more attention to the state of changes of matter more then just as what they appear before you at any given moment.
Where this gets a little tricky (or at least for those that believe in gods, "God", or anything along those lines) is if this is true of all matter then is this true about "God" or other supernatural beings? The answer is simply yes, because process theory (or whatever it is called) says that both "supernatural" and natural things (or natural things that we believe to be supernatural) are all still regulated by simple process theory. Or a simpler way to put it, we have NO knowledge or experience with ANY supernatural matter or beings that can violate this rule; and because we don't know of any it is a given that we can say that they simply do not exist until it is proven otherwise. Of course it is also a given that it is IMPOSSILE to prove that there is any "supernatural" thing because anything that we observe that seems to "pop" in and/or out of existence (even sub-atomic particles) may either be created or transformed by processes we can not observe.
I also believe this more or less in line in what is defined in the laws of thermodynamics where matter/energy can only move or pass through one or more systems and can not just "magically" appear somehow. On the Wikipedia page about the first law of thermodynamics it states:
First law of thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics :
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic processes, distinguishing two kinds of transfer of energy, as heat and as thermodynamic work, and relating them to a function of a body's state, called internal energy.
The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed".
If you ever hear of the unmoved mover theory (ie the idea that "God" created everything from nothing) the process theory, first law of thermodynamics, and more or less the MĂźnchhausen trilemma as well state that the unmoved mover is IMPOSSILE from what we know about the world around us and in all likely hood based on pure fiction and not fact.
MĂźnchhausen trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
I don''t know if this answers your question but I hope it helps. :D
So it seems disingenuous to imply anything can really be nothing. It's impossible to conceive of nothing without never having existed at all, and even then.
I think to blame is how superstitious religion has been over the years. Some scientists have the unfortunate propensity to conflate that with the notion of a higher power or higher order of existence, if not totally "God" itself.
I don't see why we ought to close our minds to the possibility that this universe works, at least, in tandem with higher levels of intelligent awareness.
I was able to grasp all 3, but unmoved mover makes me go crazy because I can't see anything that would contradict God, mainly because Aristotel seems to be focused on material kind of "cause" as if the "mover" has to be both material and stationary.
For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
Implies that for God in order to create something out of nothing needs matter to do so. :confused:
Similarly the process theory and first law of thermodynamics both require such condition.
This requirement(s) contradicts God, but the key why is because as you said:
Quoting dclements
Indeed interesting, thanks!
Quoting theRiddler
No on contrary! God doesn't need something to create something because it would depend on something, which is then no longer God.
That would be true if the First Cause or Prime Mover created something new from pre-existing raw material as human creators do. Humans are able to create imaginary Utopias without getting their hands dirty with material stuff. But they don't know how to create worlds from scratch, even in theory. So, in order to explain the sudden appearance of our space-time world, from behind a veil of ignorance, we must assume that the Cause was super-human in some meaningful sense.
So the best something-from-nothing theory I'm aware of postulates an immaterial Cause, who can conjure-up Actual enformed matter from raw Information (Potential). Einstein showed mathematically (E=MC^2) that it could be done, in theory. And scientists have transformed matter into energy (atomic bomb), but the reverse, making matter from energy, seems possible, yet remains elusive. Moreover, it cannot, even in theory, be done from scratch (no prexisting material), Therefore, the First Cause must be assumed to have creative powers beyond current human abilities.
That's why, to this day, the Big Bang Theory sounds more like Magic than Thermodynamic Science. So, maybe our explanation for creation should at least consider the possibility of an invisible Magician of some kind. Perhaps the ancient notion of a super-human god might still make sense, in view of our inability to imagine something-from-nothing, without cheating to define "nothing" in terms of something physical. :confused:
Can we manufacture matter? :
So yes, humans can manufacture matter. We can turn light into subatomic particles, but even the best scientists can't create something out of nothing.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/can-we-manufacture-matter.htm
I think they can make energy from matter with nuclear power, but yes this is not something from absolutely nothing
Either way, that does not render an inconsistency with God. It is God. And not. Which is God. Likewise with an unstable nothing.
Side bar: I think that at ultimate heat death (the opposite of ultimate density, or singularity) each particle and fraction thereof, being so far from any other, as to have no heat nor gravitational effect, will result in the popping in and out of a single virtual particle. Each pop is it's own thing, coming and going.
But it's all All.
There is no such thing and an infinite empty space is just a chimeara.
Now the standard view is like. I might add a bit of personal spice, alas. There was a singularity on which time fluctuated and only a virtual potential was present.
To put it in one short sentence:This virtual potential of kinetic particle fields, surrounding the initial singularity,,
(On which timee fluctuated) creating virtual fields of potential gauge fields, six of which stayed virtual in order to create combinations of two basic,, non-point-like massless particles (the particles being Planck-sized three dimensional spheres, which can be viewed as structures appearing when three dimension of a seven dimensional space are curled up in a seven dimensional one, to give rise to a six dimensional space, in which the extended part forms extended physical space we see in the cosmos and daily life, while the curled-up part represents tiny particles, wrongly assumed to be point- or string-like particles, giving rise to problems like renormalization, although string-theory seems to successfully have solved this problem in the context of quantum gravity, but the problems there wouldn't have arisen in the first place if the view of particles I gave would have been adopted in the first place, giving a coherent picture of the connection between curved spacetime and gravitons, laying at the base of the problems) giving rise to massive quarks and leptons, which furnished the the so needed massive matter to stop the inflation, giving a firm positive touch to the negative curvature which pulled (pushed would be a better word, since negative curvature of space give rise to anti-gravity, making matter accelerate away from each other,; a negative curvature being present on the singularity, corresponding to dark energy and inflation, the bang of the big bang) was pushed into real existence by the dark-energy-like negative curvature of the singularity, being a seven dimensional negatively curved structure, after which inflation stopped due to the reality of the particles pushed into existence.
At the same time,in this cute tale, a mirror universe emerged on the other side of the singularity, explaining the absence of anti-matter on "our side" (though both contain equal amounts of real matter and anti-matter basi kinetic matter fields, which only when combined give tha quarks and leptons on our side and the anit-counterparts on the mirrored side).
The rest is history. Primordial black holes formed the so needed dark matter to structuring galaxies, and planetary systems around the whole universe to let life evolve on rotating planets. Which eventually led to me writing this story.
People like Richard Dawkins tell us the story that all living creatures are vessels operating in a way to prolongation their selfish genes. In the case of th human vessel he speaks of memes. Now that may be a metaphore, giving rise to the "Central Dogma in Biology" (it's seriously called like that! Evidence for it, I.e. organisms themselves not being able to influence their genes, is non-existing though), but genes could just as well be called altruistic, giving organisms a way to live. Calling them egoistic conveys a certain attitude, somehow. Giving rise to pictures (litterally) of people as puppets on the strings of genes floating above them... What a depressing picture I see a lion, surrounded by a moody pack of hyenas. They viciously bite the lion where they can, over and over again. The lion gets desperate. Then a fellow lion arrives, to come to the rescue. The hyenas flee tail-withdrawnly. The lion that has regained freedom joyfully runs and plays with the lion that gave freedom. I'm sure this can be fit in the frame of the "selfish gene", but can't we just as well say that it was empathy or maybe even love, to use a rather grandiose word?
What will the future bring? Probably (though I am sure) a big rip, in which all kinetic matter field fields are stretched out, or at least the potential real photon fields, after all black holes have radiated all their kinetic matter (and their information) away in the form of Hawking radiation.
I agree that the most that can be done is to challenge what is written about God. As the thread discussion suggests, proving or disproving God is 'difficult' and I would go further and say it is impossible. As you suggest, no holy book can give us an explanation of the underlying laws of nature. I also wonder what is meant by 'nothing' because it does not appear to us but, perhaps, there is more to 'nothing' than what it appears because as it cannot be observed it may be hard to know how or in what way to describe it, and, perhaps, it is something rather than nothing.
Quoting Jack Cummins
To find fallacy in scriptures is as impossible as "disproving" God, one of the reasons why for example are contradictions that are subject to interpretation and then you're are subject to opinion of others.
Also I don't think anyone can rely on it's own interpretation only, because then there is no guarantee to be free of fallacy.
Since ancient times understanding of scriptures was always accompanied by someone who understands them.
So where is the proof?
Even if you somehow manage to find it who is going to believe you anyway? (Your sect right?)
Quoting Jack Cummins
Agree, I think if it's not absence of a thing that exists in reality then it's fake, as @Gnomon said:
Quoting James Riley
lol yes, it's not even possible to imagine :up:
That appears to be the reasoning of some Cosmologists, who propose that Something (matter-energy) emerged from No-thing (which was nothing-but formless Aristotelian Potential). Thus, they can assume that some-Thing has always existed, which simply recycles its stuff from one world to another in the tower-of-turtles we call "Multiverse" or "Many Worlds". Since those other invisible & intangible worlds are separated from our material world by an abyss-of-ignorance (space-time boundary), we can't "observe" them, so can only imagine them. That same something-from-nothing reasoning allows hard-nosed scientists to rationalize an invisible intangible Field, from which particular somethings (e.g. elementary particles) emerge at random, for no particular reason.
However, the same Hyperbolic Logic is also used for arguments in favor of various super-natural (or hyper-natural) world-makers. Some imagine humanoid deities, or aliens, as living in parallel universes. But even those imaginary godlets don't have to create new worlds from scratch, since the Potential for un-realized worlds has always existed. Hence, we are forced to conclude that something must have always existed, even if its not a thing in our local Reality. In that manner, we can always extend the tower-of-turtles one step further back closer to infinity. Yet, such asymptotic "what-if" reasoning gets us no closer to complete final understanding. So, that may be why Aristotle avoided speculating on a Real Creator, and merely postulated an Ideal First Cause, or Prime Mover. In that case, philosophers can still argue hypotheticals, as-if those ideals were real, without violating common sense.
That's also why my "G*D" conjecture is not portrayed as Real in any real-world sense. He/she/it only exists in eternal Potential -- like an infinite field of possibilities. And the only function of such a postulate is to extend our reasoning one step beyond the inexplicable Big Bang magical moment. :chin:
Platonic Form :
Form answers the question, "What is that?" Plato was going a step further and asking what Form itself is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
Either you are misreading something or I am and I'm fairly certain that I'm not. As far as I can tell the page your refencing says that ONLY nothing can come from nothing which more or less states that the same thing as something can ONLY be created from something which is no different then what I have been saying.
According to everything that has been written about GOD, he is a thing that was never made by anything (ie he was either created by nothing or all that which has been written about him is a lie) and he is a thing/force/process/whatever that doesn't need anything to allow for him to exist. In essence a GOD or unmoved mover requires something that can only be on the order of "supernatural" because it violates your "nothing from nothing" idea, process theory, Laws of Thermodynamics, and may other things as well.
If you believe GOD in the way that Abrahamic religions preach that he exists then you simply accept that the he (as well as the possibility of some of his angels or whatever he has serving him) are SUPERNATURAL, and just go about your merry way. If you believe that there are no supernatural beings or things then you simply can not agree with the way that Abahamic religions describe how he exists. If there is another way to perceive or argue this thing I'm unaware of it, nor can I imagine it ..but then again I have problems with migraines and my head is killing me right so I'm not too surprised that my powers of imagination can not conjure up one or more ways to approach this issue at the moment. I think I'm gonna go find me an aspirin or something.
My internet connection is slow & erratic today. Anybody else notice the slow responses? A Google search didn't find any experts blaming it on the current Solar Storm. But, since Something doesn't come from Nothing, that will be my assumption until I find some other deity to pin it on. :joke:
Dark matter is an example of science assuming some thing instead of nothing
1. This Permanent Thing would be local everywhere, as it is before and after our universe and during. Further, as it's the only thing, its rearrangements are it too; even we are it.
2. The elementaries formed of its initial arrangements are all identical within their types, which again indicates formation, plus it doesn't matter all that much if and when they form and which one gets used to make a composite since any one of them can get used and some will always be around.
The elementaries can be long lasting events and are near-things since they are identical to themselves over a long time, but presumably they are temporary.
From here on up to simple atoms to stars to more atoms to molecules, etc., all seems to become more and more temporary.
3. The elementaries are tiny lightweights, which shows that what formed them is also lightweight.
4. Thus, the Permanent is simple.
5.?
Fabulous, while it's conceptual truth that only nothing can come out of nothing, the opposite such that only something can come out of something is however false because nothing can come out of something as well as something.
Quoting dclements
Which is the only reasonable explanation of "natural something" out of "natural nothing".
Because, the opposite such that natural something come out of natural nothing (in absence of supernatural) is false because it would violate the "unmoved mover" theory.
In any case I'm not sure whether "natural" and "supernatural" are appropriate words to differentiate.
Quoting Michael Zwingli
No, I think you are having trouble understanding the issue. It is a given with everything we know that no natural process can create something out of nothing. It is also impossible to even prove that natural (or supernatural for that matter) process to create something out of nothing.
One can say it is possible for a "supernatural process"( a process that breaks one or more of the physical laws that have applied to every natural process that human have observed throughout history)
to create something from nothing but you CAN NOT state with any authority that something CAN come from nothing from either a "supernatural process" or otherwise because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something can come from nothing.
Trying to prove something can come from nothing would be even more difficult than trying to prove there is a "God" because you would have not only have to show that no visible process created the thing that seemed to be created out of nothing but you would also have to prove that there is no invisible/ unknowable processes responsible for creating it either so you are completely SOL if you want to try to go down that path and say that know that no invisible/ unknowable processes created the thing that you claim that was created from nothing because anyone hearing would know that you are either a fool who doesn't know what he was talking about and/or a crackpot.
So in a nutshell one can say it is "possible" for a supernatural process to create something from nothing, but one CAN NOT say that it is a given that something can be created from nothing through a supernatural process or otherwise with any authority behind that statement because anyone hearing that would know that statement is false.
Quoting SpaceDweller
They are VERY important words to differentiate for a skeptic/rational/scientific/philosopher type person. More or less it is a given that "supernatural" processes do not exist and as I explained above it is also a given that one can not even prove that "supernatural processes" exist no matter how hard they try.
If you go to a library there are sections labeled "FICTION" and "NON-FICTION". In fictional books one is allowed to talk about "supernatural" like processes like kids flying on broomsticks or a teenage farmboy fighting intergalactic evil with only the force because the books are merely fantasy and not reality. However in the non-fiction side, one is not allowed to write about books about "supernatural" processes as lightly because they are not supposed to mere flights of fancy but more about aligned with the truth.
And at the crux of this divide in western society is where the teachings of Abrahamic religions should be placed. For centuries they have been considered the truth beyond all truth, yet they often don't have to face the scrutiny that other writing have had to in order for them to be labeled NON-FICTION instead of FICTION. Understanding how and why there is this difference, why other religions and folk-lore are labeled as fiction but Abrahamic religions are not, and what this means for atheists/agnostics, followers of Abrahamic religions, and everyone else is fairly important.
In a nutshell the natural/"supernatural" process and fiction/non-fiction divide is one of the wedges used by atheist/agnostic/skeptics to undermine and/or challenge the notion that there is a "God" since it is many ways it is crazy talk to just assume there "supernatural" being named "God" when it is a given to assume that kids can fly on brooms using magic or farm boys can defeat an entire army if they are able to use the force.
There is a reality we know about that consists of natural processes called reality and there may be a reality that consists of "supernatural" processes that we know nothing about. However because we know nothing about it, it is a given that no one (not even church leaders) can claim they have knowledge of it without being a crackpot and/or fool to those that really know what they are talking about.
I believe this problem has been expressed in C.S Lewis's "Lewis's trilemma" as he explains that one is a "mad man" if one claims to know that there is a "God" and for that God not to exist.
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic â on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg â or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." - Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity
The problem with this admission of this issue is not only does it not help prove that there is a "God" in any way is that C.S. Lewis is admitting the great problems for any society to put their faith and trust in a "God" that doesn't exist...or in C/S Lewis's own words we live in a society filled with people who are on the level of lunacy where they are really no different than those who are the on the level as a man who tries to claim that he is a poached egg
Hopefully this help's explain some of the importance of why one needs to differentiate between what we natural consider to be natural processes and what might be "supernatural" process, that is if even supernatural processes even exist.
Lewis's trilemma
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lewis_Trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma
There are quantum fluctuations, albeit they don't last long.
Nothing is what is outside of the universe?
There are two issues with quantum fluctuations and why we can not claim that they do not create energy from nothing:
* The empty vacuum of space is really not empty and the ephemeral particles and/or quantum foam that
barely exists in this emptiness can change states just enough to make it appear as if matter/energy is
popping into and then out of existence. At least that is one theory.
* Even "if" these virtual particles don't enable the quantum fluctuations to pop into and out of existence it
is a given that some other energy, force, or thing could be causing quantum fluctuations to pop in and
out of existence. In a way saying this is more or less a stopgap measure or even a "cheat" if you will
for stopping anyone from getting too excited about being able to create something from nothing.
It is a given that most of the time we have at least an idea or theory of something creating something we see that comes into existence (which is like what I explained in my first argument), but even if we don't have a clue as to what is causing something to exist or happen (such as in the big bang, ghosts, telekinesis, psychic powers, magic, etc.) we can always turn to the second argument/stopgap measure which more or less just states that anything that we observe existing or appearing to come into existence but we are unaware of what causes it to be nor imaginative enough to come up with even a theory as to why it may be, we can simply just say that something that we are unaware of is causing it to be and at some undefined time in the future we should know more about it to either know how it exist or if we still don't know we may have developed a theory as to why it may be. It is more or less a given that scientist can ever sit back and say "Oh, this thing is created from nothing" because there is an infinite number of things that need to be checked before anyone can say that about any given thing or process.
Can we create energy from nothing?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/610275/can-we-create-energy-from-nothing
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-800-can-we-get-energy-from-nothing/
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-01_NutshellReadmore.html
I agree. That's why I define my personal First Cause simply as BEING : essential existence. Aquinas defined his God as the Necessary Being, without whom nothing (no beings) would exist. It's the "only thing" that exists absolutely. So simple unitary existence must be the beginning point of all theories of how & why the space-time world exists. Some postulate that space-time/matter-energy is eternal, but the Big Bang cosmology --- including the Big Freeze finale --- put a damper on such speculations. And physical Nature has never been shown to create something from nothing.
So, if we accept the logic of First Cause or Necessary Being, we can assume, without fear of contradiction, that some universal creative agency existed prior to the beginning of Space-Time. That said & set though, the "hard problem" is to determine what that hypothetical "permanent thing" was, in a more definitive sense. Reductionists & Materialists prefer to imagine that it was more-of-the-same forever : turtles-all-the-way-down. But Holists & Idealists lean toward Meta-physical & Essential answers to ultimate questions. Unfortunately, neither side can prove their pet theory, empirically or logically. So, it comes down to a matter of opinion and preference. For my money though, the eternally un-changing Ideality answers make more sense, than anything resembling our temporal and ever-changing impermanent Reality.
Ironically, most religious god-models are based on imperfect impermanent human features. That's why I prefer philosophical non-physical god-theories, such as those of Aristotle & Aquinas. :nerd:
Does modern cosmology prove the existence of God? :
The Kalam cosmological argument asserts that everything that exists has a cause, and what caused the Universe? It's got to be God.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/modern-cosmology-god/
Kalam Cosmological Argument :
[i]1. whatever begins to exist has a cause,
2. the Universe began to exist,
3. and therefore the Universe has a cause to its existence.[/i]
G*D :
[i]An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. Thatâs because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Indeed it would be impossible to empirically prove "supernatural", but same way it doesn't make sense to ask for empirical (natural) proof to prove supernatural.
As for religious portion of your post I'll abstain from turning this into a religious debate.
In any case I'm not trying nor searching for any proof beyond philosophical. :smile:
Quoting Michael
That would be virtual particles,
Quantum fluctuation
To my understanding virtual particles came and go out of existence in very short time (almost instant).
Interestingly, 2 videos are in contradiction regarding that, one say virtual particles are something, other says it's used to go beyond big bang, so it's again not something out of nothing.
You have it backwards. The vacuum of space isn't "really" empty because quantum fluctuations happen.
It could be, but we have no evidence of such a thing. In fact, quantum fluctuations as something-from-nothing are a consequence of the uncertainty principle which we have many reasons to believe is true.
The 'Essential Existent' is a good label for what has to be. I've also called it the External Existent' or 'G.O.D'âthe Ground of Determination.
Quoting Gnomon
Aquinas makes an unwarranted leap here to a Being having Mind because he wants 'God'.
Quoting Gnomon
That's better; I hope Aquinas is listening. It's not only simple as a necessity for its forming of the lightweight elementaries but also because its needs to be partless and continuous to be Absolute as Fundamental. It would not be able to think, plan, and create via a System of Mind as the ultimate simplicity; however, so it is that the lesser leads to the greater, not as Aquinas' view that is the reverse and would lead to an infinite regress of greaters making lessers.
Quoting Gnomon
The whole darn universe is temporary. Stability decreases on upward and only photons remain at the end, for they don't decay by themselves.
Quoting Gnomon
'Is', not 'was'. It's enough to know that it's the simplest possible, it being the closest to Null that could be. It's extremely far from Full, for as Full it could not rearrange.
Quoting Gnomon
G*DâGod Damn! To boldly jump to it having Mind is a leap much more than a tiny quantum jump.
As for there just being a plain old Big Bang, that would have been any old unbalanced useless happening. Inflation is likely needed just before the Bang to make a universe balanced as well as Big to have a chance; however, since the Essential Existence is always around there are a heck of a lot of chances.
Minds and their great accomplishments only come about later on, all their temporary glories doomed.
If you wish to believe whatever you want to believe what you say might be true, but in order for what you believe to stand up to the scrutiny of other people arguments you have to be able to have some way to prove what you say has some validity. Otherwise as my fellow forum member 180 Proof has often pointed out:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens"
If you want to postulate the existence of "supernatural" processes in some way you have to something to support your argument or position. Otherwise people can dismiss it as just as a personal belief that doesn't have any merit behind it.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Well you choose the title of this thread to be "Can theory of nothing challenge God?" and with such a title it kind of safe to assume that we would be discussing either how the theory of nothing challenges the belief in God or how similar theories do.
It is plausible that you choose that title just to create some kind of "click bait" and never was really interested in listening to anything that might challenge your belief in "God" and if so that is really your issue and not mine. However I'm simply trying to explain the situation to you to the best of my knowledge and provide you with the answer you may or may not be pretending to seek.
I may be wrong but if you or someone else really want to if theory of nothing in way can challenge the notion or the belief in "God" you should just gloss over part of the discussion just because they don't want to get into a religious debate because it is pretty much a given that any thread involving something that might challenge the notion of "God" is going to be a religious debate from the get go.
Fair point :up: but far from "click bait"
The true reason why I started this thread is because theory of nothing is relatively new theory that is obviously not well defined, and for which I believed is good one to understand what was there before BB if there ever was anything.
But I wouldn't dismiss anything however uncertain it may be, because in the end if you dismiss everything then what do you have left to work with? I guess "nothing" :meh:
Your links and propositions indeed helped me to get better understanding, thanks!
You may say it potato and I say it potato or vice-versa but there really isn't a difference as far as I can tell. The thing I read explained that how quantum fluctuations where possible because in the ether of vacuum of space the space isn't really "empty" (ie it requires some kind of matter/energy to exist) and because it isn't empty it can create quantum fluctuations. What it sound like is how it was explained to you as that we can deduce that the vacuum of space isn't because it allows for quantum fluctuations to happen. I don't know which is a more accurate description as I'm not one who has studied the field of quantum physics, but I'm not sure if it really makes a difference and/or if it really relevant to this discussion. If it is please explain it further or point out a source that does.
Quoting Michael
I think you misunderstand the facts that you read and are merely assuming something due to some misunderstanding. The thing I have up to now have be calling "process theory" (because I couldn't remember what it was really called) is really called the "Conservation Law" in physics. There is even a wiki page about it and such:
======================================================================
Conservation law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
"In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time. Exact conservation laws include conservation of mass (now conservation of mass and energy after Einstein's Theory of Relativity), conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of electric charge. There are also many approximate conservation laws, which apply to such quantities as mass, parity, lepton number, baryon number, strangeness, hypercharge, etc. These quantities are conserved in certain classes of physics processes, but not in all.
A local conservation law is usually expressed mathematically as a continuity equation, a partial differential equation which gives a relation between the amount of the quantity and the "transport" of that quantity. It states that the amount of the conserved quantity at a point or within a volume can only change by the amount of the quantity which flows in or out of the volume."
======================================================================
If you are ready to jump down the rabbit hole and want to find if anything can break the conservation law and similar laws of physics I wish you luck. Right now I'm a little too tired to research the subject and what I have come across suggests that most people that have something like a PhD in theoretical physics disagree with your argument that quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy. If you can show me some evidence that quantum vacuum fluctuation does violate the conservation of energy then let me know.
(Here is a link to explanation by a guy with a PhD in the field where he explains why vacuum fluctuation violate do not the conservation of energy. His explanation is a bit to long for me to cut and paste it into this post.)
Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?
https://www.quora.com/Does-quantum-vacuum-fluctuation-violate-the-conservation-of-energy
"Can theory of nothing challenge God?"
and
"Can nothing challenge God?"
Yes. As a Catholic theologian, his philosophical definition had to resemble the official Bible-God, which is described both as an eternal principle (similar to Brahman or Tao), and as a humanoid person, with some un-god-like human attributes, such as a fragile ego, and a quick temper (like Zeus). Nevertheless, I find his rational philosophical God to be closer to my own than the typical bible-thumper's hell-fire War-Lord of the World. But, I actually go back to Aristotle's non-religious ideal principles for my god-model.
BEING (being qua being) would not "have" a mind or brain, but would be The Mind, in the sense of containing & processing all of the information necessary to create a space-time world from scratch (i.e. physical world from meta-physical design -- an idea & a plan). Philosophical god-models are usually abstract & potential, as opposed to the Religious deities that are concrete & actual.
Brahman :
In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest universal principle, the ultimate reality in the universe.
Tao or Dao is a Chinese word signifying the "way", "path", "route", "road" or sometimes more loosely "doctrine", "principle" or "holistic beliefs". Wikipedia
Quoting PoeticUniverse
In my worldview, the First Cause (Creator) must be eternal (timeless) and simple (in the sense of atomic Holism). However, in order to produce the space-time world --- that we know & love, and grumble about --- the Cosmic Cause must have the infinite Potential to subdivide the whole into subordinate parts, while remaining more than the sum of the parts. And the power to create beings that not only have living bodies, but also thinking & planning minds. Consequently, a physical deity would not suffice. Only a metaphysical BEING could be "partless and continuous" (no elementary particles). In order to be Eternal and Necessary and Creative, that First Cause would have to comply with Aristotle's metaphor of a Seed of Potential. The seed is not a tree, but it contains coded information (DNA) that can be transformed into a full-grown tree.
Potential vs Actual :
This connects the matter/form distinction to another key Aristotelian distinction, that between potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (entelecheia) or activity (energeia).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#ActuPote
Quoting PoeticUniverse
My hypothetical G*D "is" and always was. It's simple, in the sense of an undivided Whole, but in order to create, must have the power & potential to produce a physical world, not from Material, but from Ideas (Information). Since G*D per se is no-physical-thing, it is "Null" in terms of actual things. However, it must also be All-metaphysical-things in the sense of creative Potential. Hence, "Full" of unformed possibilities.
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Yes! Absolutely. If the First Cause did not have the Power to conceive a world,, how could human minds emerge from the rough & tumble of mindless Evolution. The conceptual leap is from a humanoid god-concept to an abstract philosophical principle :Mind qua Mind = intellect, consciousness, thought
The Philosophical Principle : being qua being.
Conceive : 2. form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.
What is a first principle in philosophy? :
A first principle is a foundational proposition or assumption that stands alone. We cannot deduce first principles from any other proposition or assumption.
Being Qua Being :
Metaphysics is the study of "being qua being", or the study of attributes that belong to things merely insofar as they exist, e.g. existence, unity, sameness and difference.
Still can't have 'The Mind' as First and Fundamental even as a Potential that thinks as much as an Actual; complexity can't be just sitting around already complete.
Besides, the universe is full of intelligent design, and forms and proceeds just like the natural would: Deuterium bottleneck, 98% hydrogen gas tuned, long Cosmic evolution time, long biological evolution time, species going extinct, humans nearly too, a big asteroid opening up space for mammals to evolve into humansâŚ
Biological evolution doesn't swing the necessity toward 'God'; it is a design without a designer, for the platforms from which change can lead a way forward are always already stable as a fallback as it roughs, tumbles, and stumbles through slow accumulation onto millions of creature species.
There is no effective supernatural, hyperphysical, distinct nonphysical realm that can't speak the physical talk; no magic, just the usual pipe dreams of a largest making for the smallerâwe note the opposite as the actual progression.
The temporary universe decays and ends as the failure that its beginning ultimately meant: zip. It probably fades because there can be no infinite precision, no lasting ultimate information put in, and no way to foresee the n-body problem to create something lasting. All its mutable complex glories and triumphs die, but the Simple remains.
Hail to the transient, those grand complexities to which the Simple pales in comparison!
[b]The Permanent and Its Temporaries
&
Unity in Multiplicity
&
The One and the Many
&
Change and the Changeless
&
Especially
The Constant Demise of the Mutables[/b]
(Inspired by Shelley and his style, and altering a few verses)
Weep for the temporaries; they all fade,
Those transient bubbles blown and burst
Through their brief lives, of the Permanent made.
Oh, weep for the ephemeral dispersed,
Sad hours all, throughout the months and years,
To mourn their steady loss with flowing tears;
Teach them oâer the morrows thine own sorrow
For the yesterdays they could only borrow
From the Oneâs everlasting simplicity.
Oh, weep for the unsteady, born to flee!
For now, their light echoes and lights the path
Continued that they added to, onto more
Evanescences walking Timeâs footpath,
Til Past has been forgotten by Future.
Oh, limited Mother, their tales best
Thine by far eâen in their impermanence,
But Thou canât save them from their final rest,
For they are chained to timeâs changing tense.
Thou cannot rekindle their faded breath,
Those melodies that hid coming death.
Like the flowers that mock the corpse beneath,
The Enduring cloaks their extinguished wreath.
With veiled eyes, newer moments weep despair,
While spreading forth their own emergences;
Dream not that the Eternal Deep can their air
Restore, for the makeshift must progress, spent.
The universe has to continue its race,
Unwinding, like a spring, at timeâs fixed pace,
In which star-generations are born and perish,
Giving their lives for all we can cherish.
Energyâs Hunger stalks all creatures made,
Lying ever just âround the corner in the shade.
Death takes both humans and the beetle as one,
After their lives are spent from rolling some dung.
Living clouds wane, having outwept their rain;
The pale inconstants must eâer pass their reign.
Like mistâs pageantry on an autumnal night,
As a slowing pomp, all events made light
Decay: Desires, Adorations, Destinies,
Glooms, Splendours, Sighs, Hopes, Fears, and Phantasies.
Pleasure hails, blinded by tears and sorrow:
âYou took from Death all that Life could borrow.â
Like our shades dance the walls of Platoâs cave,
Weâre 3D shadows of 4Dâs enclaveâŚ
Itâs like a lamp lights up a paper shadeâ
We are as figures thereupon portrayed.
We are magic lanterns shining here;Â
Our spirits are the lights in there.
Weâre the Oneâs Candled Magic Shadow-Show,
In which we Phantom Figures come and go.
Come, light your lantern and mine with good cheer;
Weâre magic lamps; our spirits dance in here.
We are phenomenaâs projected face,
Well-painted from noumenaâs unseen base.
From what bright star came the gleam in your eyes?Â
From what distant sun came your smile, light-wise?
Our minds and senses interpret and dispense
The base reality into the colors and sensations
Of the phenomenal world from the noumenal;
We may become either rainbows or ugly stains!
Our beginnings and ends are of nowhere,
So, letâs radiate, since for now weâre here!
Ending by Shelley himself:
The One remains, the many change and pass;
Heavenâs light forever shines, Earthâs shadows fly;
Life, like a dome of many-colourâd glass,
Stains the white radiance of Eternity,
Until Death tramples it to fragments.âDie,
If thou wouldst be with that which thou dost seek!
Follow where all is fled!âRomeâs azure sky,
Flowers, ruins, statues, music, words, are weak
The glory they transfuse with fitting truth to speak.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Paragraph "Actuality and Potentiality" at the end that says Aristotle also offers an "even stricterâ argument which concludes as:
Can anyone assert this is not fallacy?, it's more correct to say:
what might possibly not be is possibly perishable but far from "perishable" as final.
Why? because possibility doesn't deduce as definitely impossible as final, but rather possibly impossible!
Quoting James Riley
In my OP it was not clear what I mean by "theory of nothing", but obviously there is a distinction of scientific nothing and philosophical nothing.
It's obvious 1st video is in contradiction with 2nd video because 1st video expands to philosophical nothing where's 2nd video assumes "scientific nothing" for which it's not self-explanatory what it means.
I'm guessing scientific nothing is locked to current scientific discoveries so there is no universal definition.
Therefore philosophical "nothing" definitely can not challenge God, it's up to scientists to define what they mean by "nothing".
Quoting dclements
Therefore is it safe to say that virtual particles (aka. quantum fluctuation) is what exceeds both matter and energy? (but not necessarily the laws of physics, that is laws of quantum physics)
If so then scientific theory of nothing probably assumes absence of matter and energy but not quantum fluctuation.
:100: :up:
In distinguishing between a theory of nothing and nothing itself, I was thinking "Can nothing challenge God" sounded like today's sermon on a reader-board outside of some church along the byways of America. Of course, the upshot of the sermon would be "No! Nothing can challenge God!" They lure in the sheep with a temptation of controversy, only to shut it down. Meanwhile, some little kid in the pews is wondering: "Wait, if God is really God, can't he challenge himself? If not, is God nothing, or not nothing, or both? Did God challenge himself by creating people who aspire to his position? No. Hmmm. Mom, when is this over? I want to go outside and play."
So you say. And that's a true statement . . . in the physical Real World. But, the metaphysical Ideal Realm may not be bound by the physical rules of thermodynamics. Scientists have long been perplexed by the existence of "Natural Laws" in a dynamic world scrambled by fundamental Randomness. For Plato's Forms, actual complexity is not "just sitting around already complete". Instead, a Metaphysical Form is merely the Potential Design for a future thing, that must then be Actualized, sometimes by a prolonged complex process of evolution, into a Physical Thing.
For example, if randomness is just a tool for creating novel opportunities, then maybe that tool is "wielded" so-to-speak by the organizing law of Natural Selection. Together, the random-number-generator and the non-random-fitness-selector form a progressive evolutionary program for optimizing a design. But that program would not exist without a Programmer, who has the mental potential to imagine a future reality, and to make it actual. In the First Cause scenario, the computer -- our complexifying physical universe -- is merely the execution of a simple Genetic Algorithm.
So, maybe you can't make sense of a Primal Mind, but a designing mind is essential to an evolutionary program. The mind doesn't have to do the work though, it merely sets the criteria for Selection (Natural Laws). Then, the Programmer starts the machine to grind-out solutions to the Cosmic Question. Anyway, to me, the notion that our world began as an idea in the Mind of G*D is more poetic than the null hypothesis of an accidental world, existing for no reason. That would be a meaningless irrational coincidence. Moreover, the magical theory of a world-from-nothing makes no sense without a magician. :joke:
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution â limited only by local restraints â to the original programmerâs goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Evolutionary Design :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
Genetic algorithm :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
Coincidence vs Creation :
Laws of Natureâs God
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html
PS__Even in the scientific metaphor of the world as a dumb machine, someone . . . some Mind has to design the mechanism, and to turn it on. Machines don't just appear out of nowhere.
Ok, I guess that is almost a good enough reason as any to start a thread but I hope that you understand through some of my posts how certain things like laws of physics (such as the law of conservation, which I was calling process theory, and the laws of thermodynamics) deal with the issues of the theory of nothing before we even knew anything about quantum fluctuations.
There may be a few people that believe that believe that quantum fluctuations somehow create something out of nothing, but from what little I have read of it the majority of scientist that work in this field either A) disagree with their assumptions based on their understanding of the mathematical proofs B) point out that theories on quantum fluctuations are based only mathematical proofs that may not properly explain the process in how quantum fluctuations work. Or in other words the mathematical proof are merely a kind of bookkeeping of the process (which is true of all mathematical formulas) and any weirdness or irregularities resulting of such formulas are mostly likely errors in the formulas themselves than anything being able to violate the law of conservation and/or laws of thermodynamics.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Being able to dismiss theories or certain people's assumptions is a good thing and more useful then you might think. The more you can just dismiss (such as anything that is just assumed by someone without any proof) without much effort, the less you really have to think or worry about.
While there is always a chance that some black swan may come around to disrupt that status quo or the paradigm in how the world is viewed, these black swans don't really appear all that often.
Quoting SpaceDweller
Your welcome. :D
I'm not sure who wrote the wiki page your quoting but here is a link written by a guy with a PhD in theoretical physics who disagrees with your assertion:
Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?
https://www.quora.com/Physics/Does-quantum-vacuum-fluctuation-violate-the-conservation-of-energy/answer/Luke-Pritchett?srid=OKNi&share=1
=======================================================================
[b]Q) Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?
A)No! Saying that quantum mechanics does not conserve energy is misinterpreting quantum mechanics.[/b]
I will use the term "Hamiltonian" as I explain what I mean. The Hamiltonian is a mathematical object that appears in both quantum mechanics and classical physics. It takes on slightly different forms in those two regimes, but in both cases it is strictly tied to the total energy of the system being studies. In general the Hamiltonian is a function of the state variables (position and momentum) of all the objects in the system, along with possible time-dependent external terms. For a system of one particle (quantum or classical) it looks like
H=p22m+V(q,t)
where p and q are the particle's momentum and position and V is a possibly time-dependent potential function. Basically what this is saying is that the total energy of the system is the particle's kinetic energy plus its potential energy. [*]
As long as the Hamiltonian does not change form in time ( ?V?t=0 ) then energy is conserved.
In classical physics the Hamiltonian is just a number. That is, at any point in time I can only possibly measure one value for the total energy of the system. It is easy to understand conservation in this case. At every point in time I measure the same number for total energy.
In quantum physics the Hamiltonian is not just a number. Instead there are a collection of energy eigenvalues. Any time I measure the energy I can only measure one of these eigenvalues. Each of these eigenvalues has at least one physical arrangement of the system associated with it, called eigenstates. If the system is arranged in an eigenstate then every time I measure the energy I measure the same value --- the associated eigenvalue. This is how conservation of energy works in quantum mechanics. If I know the energy exactly at one point in time then I know the energy exactly at every point in time from then on (as long as I only measure energy).
Let me repeat. If the system is in an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian then every time I measure the energy (without measuring anything else in between) I will find the same value. If I know the energy exactly at one point in time then I know the energy exactly at every point in time. Every formulation of quantum mechanics I know supports this statement.
Now, things are of course more interesting in quantum mechanics than classical physics. There are a few things that can happen in quantum mechanics that look like energy is not being conserved. However, I think you will see that it isn't really right to say that conservation of energy is being broken in these cases.
In quantum mechanics it is possible for a physical state to be in a superposition of two different states. Say there are two eigenstates associated with energies E1 and E2 . The system can be in the first state (in which case we will always measure E1 ) or the second state. It can also be in a combination of the two states, in which case when I measure the energy I might measure E1 or E2 ! If we thought we were in the first state only but then measured E2 we might think energy was not conserved. But really we were just confused about what state the system was in. That's not really breaking conservation of energy.
Another thing that can happen is pretty much the same as the last case, but more cleverly hidden. Particle physics is governed by a quantum Hamiltonian just like we've described. However, it has two terms: H=H0+V . The term H0 is usually called the "bare Hamiltonian." The bare Hamiltonian describes the simple relativistic energy of particles. In quantum electrodynamics a state with one electron with momentum p has exactly the energy we expect: (pc)2+(mc2)2????????????? . The energy of a state with two electrons is the sum of the relativistic energies of the two electrons. Even better, states with a definite number number of electrons are eigenstates of the bare Hamiltonian. This is kind of how we expect things to work so it seems nice.
But it's not really how it works. Electrons interact with photons and positrons. To describe that interaction we have to add the interaction term V . Doing so changes the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. Without the interaction a state with just one electron is an eigenstate -- it has a definite energy. With the interaction a state with just one electron is no longer an eigenstate! That means we might measure several different energies of the system just by putting in a single electron.
Even weirder, energy eigenstates of the Hamiltonian do not have a definite number of particles! If we prepare two systems with the same definite energy and then measure the number of particles we might find one to have just an electron, and we might find another to have an electron and a photon. This sounds weird because we are used to finding the energy of a collection of particles by adding up their individual energies. That doesn't work in relativistic QM because the potential energy depends on the interaction between particles.
But is energy conservation broken? No. All that's happened is states that we thought would be energy eigenstates are not. We thought we were arranging a state of definite energy, but we were actually arranging a superposition.
This got long and doesn't have any pictures. Sorry. Long story short, if it looks like quantum mechanics isn't conserving energy it's because you're interpreting something in a way that you shouldn't really.
[*] Hamiltonians for relativistic particles don't have this form, but the idea is the same. They still represent the form of the total energy of the system. - Luke Pritchett, PhD in theoretical physics
=======================================================================
Since he and a few other people who also have PhDs in the field disagree with what your are trying to assert, I think it is more probable that you (and the guy who wrote that wiki page) are misinterpreting the process of how quantum mechanics/vacuum fluctuations works and that vacuum fluctuations don't actually break the conservation laws of physics.
hahah, good joke! :rofl:
Quoting dclements
Awesome insight! who would though of misinformation on wiki.
This also explains why there is no clear-cut definition of "scientific" theory of nothing, it's obviously depends on most recent scientific discoveries.
Seems like we touched the ground of both scientific and philosophical.
Quoting Gnomon
Question from link:
Seems like Yes\No choice question where one needs to choose between God and "no God", or good and evil, or 0 and 1, but that's mathematically incorrect question.
Given all the discoveries and insights we collected, I think it's rather God or infinity (That is God or I don't know):
no real particles at the singularity. They were pulled into reality by inflation, and that's called creation of the universe. What isn't explained though, is were this singularity came from. It's a mystery, even if it's an in-between singularity on an eternal, infinite space. Was it God?
One cannot even hope to have an 'explanation' that itself would need all the more explanation, to the nth degree, even, plus as a regress.
That was indeed my choice, many years ago, when I decided that my Back-to-the-Bible religion was no longer believable. However, I had no answer to more general philosophical questions, such as "why are we here?", or "Did something come from nothing". So, for years, I labeled myself an Agnostic (I simply don't know).
But now, after many more years of philosophical investigation, I call myself a Deist. That allows me to say I believe that some kind of God (creative principle) was necessary to account for the existence of our contingent temporary world. But, I still don't know anything directly about the First Cause, except what I can infer from studying the non-random Effects of Creation. That way, I can have my Creator and Science too. :smile:
PS__But, sadly, no hope for salvation from an imperfect creation. So, I just make the best of a sometimes difficult situation.
That may be true of empirical Science. But not of theoretical Philosophy. Yet, the best they could come up with is a mysterious hypothetical First Cause that at least terminates the regression of Evolution at a Question Mark (Singularity ; God ; Logos, ?) instead of a never-ending tower-of-turtles ellipsis (multiverse ; many worlds) . . . . .
Philosophers have been "explaining" the same general questions to each generation for eons. Ironically, even empirical scientists get mired in eternal regress whenever they try to explain general questions, such as a Theory of Everything. :joke:
TOE or GOD ? :
A theory of everything (TOE or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, theory of the world or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe. Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
First Cause vs Infinite Regress :
A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
A Deistic profession of Faith :
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm
The 'theoretical' Philosophy has no theory in concluding "deemed to be God" because 'deeming' doesn't make 'God'. They may further think they can eliminate their turtle regress of higher always leading to lower by taking the higher answer all the way to infinite or to the mostest Mind, this leaving no room for another Higher Mind to account for the Perfect Mind that has to thus remain unaccounted for as The First Uncaused Cause. Sagan and Okkam would say to skip this ultimate mystery level that dwarfs evolution's now infinitesimal level in terms of having to be explained. Begging the question, as ever, doesn't answer but just makes for a larger question, in this case it becoming the largest question.
It fails. Our universe is not perfect, nor it is completely mathematically elegant, for there are superfluous entities in it, along with a lot of waste. Protons and neutrons require only up and down quarks, and not the other four quarks.
We don't know anything about creation and how perfect or imperfect it was, except as it looks now.
Are the laws of physics perfect?
Quantum fluctuation is uncertain but we don't know whether that's perfect or not.
Seemingly chaotic universe is governed by the laws of physics, but universe is not subject of itself nor governed by itself therefore why it would be perfect or what's perfect at all?
Therefore using same logic, Spinoza's view that God = nature and nature = God is imperfect as well.
As a philosophical hypothesis, I would use the term "inferred". In my Enformationism thesis I provide the factual basis and the reasoning. "To Deem" is to have an opinion. But "to infer" is to have good reasons. Of course, all inferences, scientific or philosophical, are uncertain. To "infer" a Big Bang from astronomical evidence doesn't "make" a universe from nothing. But, so far, nobody has come up with a better solution to the perennial philosophical "why" questions. So, G*D is my "theory", and I'm sticking to it. :joke:
To Infer : deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements
Theory : an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
What is the main purpose of philosophy? :
Philosophy overall aims to question assumptions we make about our lives and really dig in to the details of why we think what we think and how we choose to act. It can get complicated at times, but it can also help a person to see more clearly that there are other ways of looking at the world than is our habit.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/philosophy-definition-purpose.html
Is anything in this world perfect? My religious up-bringing repeatedly pointed to the imperfection of humans, and human logic. But then, it pointed to a leather-bound book, and declared that it was "perfect" as a revelation from God.
Yet, after the age of reason I concluded, via my imperfect logic, that the man-made book was so obviously imperfect, that I couldn't believe a word it said. Since the only thing Perfect is ALL (1) or NOTHING (0) only death will make my life perfect. In the meantime, I simply deal with uncertainty, and make-do with good-enough for pragmatic purposes. :smile:
PS___I accept that Nature is G*D, in the sense that the First Cause created the world out of H/er own substance : Information (the creative power to enform). So, the space-time creation is imperfect and evolving; but the Enfernal (eternal-- infinite) Creator must be perfect, in the sense of Whole, Complete, ALL.
PanEnDeism :
Panendeism (all in god) is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html
My worldview acknowledges the imperfections of our beloved world, and offers a rationale for a less-than-ideal creation of a World Creator : it ain't perfect until it's over. Nothing that changes will ever be perfect (whole, complete), until it ceases to change. Perfection has no room for evolution. So, our role is merely to evolve, until we can't go no mo'.
Only ALL (1) or NOTHING (0) or Full-Circle are complete and perfect. Since we are somewhere in the middle of those extremes, we can only assume that the world is still evolving from Alpha toward Omega. Hence, imperfect creatures cannot expect a perfect creation. However, it's good-enough for my moderate needs and expectations. So, I'm content (dare I say "happy"?) with Aristotelian Moderation in all things. That's a philosophical/Stoic attitude toward a less than perfect world. Are you a frustrated perfectionist? :cool:
PS___are you disappointed in your imperfect world?
How to beat Perfectionism :
[i]Perfectionism rarely begets perfectionâonly disappointment.
The Stoics understood how pointlessâand dangerous to our mental health and progress in lifeâthose thoughts were.[/i]
https://dailystoic.com/perfectionism/
Very true! The other four quarks though are virtually absent. If you consider them as mere exitations of the up- and down-quark, then you could say they are necessary entities, like the excited state of the hydrogen atom is one in a body of cold hydrogen. In extreme situations, the two extra families of quarks and leptons can come into play. They might even be considered necessary, not wasteful, but absent in the grand scheme.
So, we uncertainly infer by "fact and reason" that 'The Mind' just happens to be sitting around as First, as not at all physical but now having hyperphysical magic makes a mediocre physical universe by being able to figure, plan, and implement, although having no parts to engage in its thinking and writing of the code, being singular, with no regress to how it became as a creative system, not at all partless, which gets ignored as begging the question, a Mind that steered evolution into making variant viruses and 50-80 million species of insects on a planet whose life suffers near extinctions from asteroids, volcanoes, wars, ice ages, global warmings, nuclear winters, and more, not to mention a long barbaric history and a trend for the dumb to produce many more offspring than the smart, and so forth as no better than nature could have done by itself and, coincidently, exactly the same as nature could. This is much better than even the tiniest step toward anything more decent and liveable.
Hail to the Imperfect Mind that made a universe that will fall apart. No wonder a lot of people have a sit-com mentality; they are mirrors of the Mind who thought that imperfect programming could fly.
I learned as a programmer at IBM that poor programs will often abort, but it's not any great shakes to expect that. Coder, you're fired!
Did it use a quantum computer? No, for it is non physical, plus that came out way later.
No more need for investigation; the Blundering Great Programmer wrote how all should goâand that is the Theory of Everything in a nutshell and a nut head. Global warming is now heading toward 2.7 degrees⌠The Third World War looms. Goodbye, cruel world!
So, how did 'The Mind' and its information, out of thin air, such as it is, not the best, get programmed? Or do we just have to explain an event such as our universe, but not anything much wider in scope as proposed by the template that Larger ever makes the lesser, and so forth? Let us only use the template once and then instantly throw out its rule.
hello fellow coder,
I guess our "great programmer" never heard of exception handling or even worse it forgot to debug prior to release, so this whole universe may as well be a debug version of what it should be lol. :joke:
And here is the proof of a bug we found, our scientists attached a debugger and discovered black holes, which are considered to be the place where our great programmer somehow divided by zero, which may explain why this universe is nothing else but "undefined behavior".
What is "undefined behavior"?
nasal demons may explain the source of evil lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_behavior
Thanks. :)
Wikipedia isn't all that reliable which is part of the reason when people are writing college research papers they are supposed to not rely on it as a source of information. I don't even know if the link from which I quoted the PhD in theoretical physics is reliable or even correct since I know so little about quantum physics I really can't make heads or tails on what he is writing about. But then again I fairly certain that at least 99% of the people reading this forum can't be all that certain about it either.
To be honest though I believe there is a theoretical counter argument to the laws of conservation although it may take a little bit of mental gymnastics to explain it to you if really you want to hear it. I know that it might seem like I was being a bit deceptive for me saying earlier that the laws of conservation can't be broken and now saying that they could perhaps be broken or at least undermined, but the counter argument isn't a way to break the law itself but a means to say almost any rule we create could be undermined under certain conditions, which is basically true about any truth we assume or try to believe.
In a way I was hoping for someone to come up with another real counter argument to the laws of conservation, but of course it is almost all but a given that there isn't that many out there and it is unlikely anyone reading this thread would know of one even if they do exist. Any law or belief can be show to be faulty one way or another if one really wants to find a way to undermine it.
No don't bother, I could google out details if interested, but information so far is more than what I expected, thanks!
Yes. Do you have a better explanation for a palpable universe from who-knows-what?
Multiverse theories, infer that an unknowable eternal universe has always existed, and froths with bubble universes that come & go. A likely story, but based on what "facts & reason"? Even within our knowable universe, scientists have imagined an unreal period of hyper-inflation --- fraction of an instant; near zero to astronomical size --- which fortuitously exceeds the speed limit of our own bubble universe.
The mathematical reasoning for that magical "presto!" appearance of something-from-nothing simply worked backwards from a desired conclusion to a highly improbable and unnatural process. Apparently, materialists faced with an apparent Creation Event, can imagine a variety of alternative explanations, and even make them seem reasonable by plucking numbers out of the air. Anything prior to the Big Bang beginning is uncertain, even when postulated by eminent scientists. :nerd:
Cosmic inflation is a faster-than-light expansion of the universe . . . .
https://www.newscientist.com/definition/cosmic-inflation/
Presto : 1 : suddenly as if by magic
Quoting PoeticUniverse
I'll ignore the blasphemy. A mind capable of designing an evolutionary process, and then implementing it in malleable physical stuff, could hardly be called imperfect. So, I conclude that the tendency to "fall apart" was intentional. Perfecting is a process, Perfection is an end. So to get from imperfection to perfection requires a period of weeding out the unfit. A sculptor begins with a blank block of marble, and carves away everything that is not a "perfect" imitation of the model in his mind. :grin:
âWhen carving stone, the sculptor removes everything that is not the statue."
___Judith Hanson Lasater
Quoting PoeticUniverse
That's easy. Our space-time world is limited by program parameters, but the Programmer (Enformer) of the world exists outside the space-time program. Is that so hard to imagine? A computer programmer is not "in" the computer, hence not bound by its rules. Instead, the computer is created to serve the purposes of the Programmer. The realm outside the confines of the computer is "much wider in scope" than anything within the low-resolution program.
If our world is a space-time bubble, whatever is outside the membrane is Not Space Time, hence could be eternal. Even the imaginary Multiverse is assumed to have always existed. So who programmed the Multiverse, with Natural Laws & Energy & Matter? If you like, you can imagine the Programmer of our world as an ever-growing tower-of-turtles, but only an Eternal Programmer can end the inconclusive ellipsis of open-ended existence. . . . . . . . . . .
When philosophers and scientists begin to develop an explanatory theory for a mystery, they usually begin with an Axiom : an unproven assumption. G*D, Logos, First Cause, Prime Mover is the all-encompassing axiom upon which my thesis is founded. That simple assumption is postulated as a beginning point for further argumentation. The rest of the argument is in the Enformationism website, and the BothAnd Blog. Any questions? :joke:
Axiom : An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments.
Pragmatic Idealism :
the kind of Pragmatic Idealism I'm envisioning does not replace scientific Realism --- and doesn't endorse fantasies of magic, miracles & monsters --- because every thing or fact in the ârealâ parts of the world is subject to logical validation or empirical testing prior to belief. Only the unreal (ideal) Deity is, by necessity, taken for granted as an axiom.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page9.html
Enformationism : http://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/
To make this easier to imagine: in 10exp-36 seconds, about one third of the present extension of the universe came into being. The bang indeed. But in the context of the Planck-time, 10exp-43 seconds, this took a quite considerable time.
So about 1/27 of the total volume of space in the present universe came to exist. Can space itself expand with a faster than light velocity? Hmm... A length of space larger than the diameter of the present-day observable space came into being during that inflation period. But were things moving FTL?
What is greater than god, more evil than the Devil, the poor have it, the rich don't need it, and if you eat it, you'll die?
The answer: Nuthin'!
It appears the sunyata is a package deal - the Buddha had to take the good with the bad!
50000-80000 species of insects known as bugs; here the great programmer coded 0/0.
The One of Necessity that has to be, per Parmenides, as the simplest base. The least can lead to the great, albeit temporary, as seen in our universe.
Quoting Gnomon
Simpler same as the Great Programmer always being present and creating more universes.
Quoting Gnomon
'Nothing' cannot even be meant.
Great one! Still the question remains where the least, comes from. Maybe it came from, or lies on another great, even in an eternal succession, but even then. Where TF did that came from? In my hunger for knowledge, I just can't understand.
Quoting Verdi
Good question. The FTL Inflation Theory (from almost nothing to everything in an immeasurable fraction of time) is either super-natural or magical, or both. For my own worldview, I prefer to move any postulated preternatural events outside of the natural space-time margins. Since we have no empirical evidence for anything that is not subject to the limitations of space-time, outside the known anything is possible. But to imagine such lawless behavior within the bounds of reality is un-realistic.
That's why I'm surprised that so many scientists accept such an egregious hypothesis, simply because it seems to replace divine Creation, with a smoke & mirrors Magic Act. I'm neither a Theist nor Atheist, so I'm not desperate enough to accept Scientish Magic in place of Religious Magic. So, my thesis is not based on Faith, but on rational inference --- from what-is to what-might-be. It's just a philosophical thesis, not an emotional religion. :nerd:
Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural.
Egregious : extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake;
Zeptosecond - the smallest time unit ever measured
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=smallest+measurable+fraction+of+time
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theoryâs most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, donât hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers. . . . . â[I]nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.â
___Sabine Hossenfelder
Sabine is a theoretical physicist specialized in quantum gravity and high energy physics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=3bb8aefab45e
Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea :
The Babylonians invented it, the Greeks banned it, the Hindus worshipped it, and the Christian Church used it to fend off heretics. Today it's a timebomb ticking in the heart of astrophysics. For zero, infinity's twin, is not like other numbers. It is both nothing and everything.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082LN7XPV/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Great comment! And very understandable (I was actually Googling the words you explained later, didn't see it...) Inflation is regarded non-scientific in that it can't be. falsified. This doesn't mean it didn't happen. It even happens nowadays!
Well, some think zero is the greatest number if it's actually the sum of all the positives and negatives. Infinity, being everything, like the Library of Babel, in a way has the same information content as no library at all: zero.
Yes, and it is greatly failing now that we didn't find a lot of B-mode polarization to indicate gravity waves for that kind of inflation.
The religious thinkers face the haunt of the regress that dooms their notion once they propose the lesser from the greater. They likely see the universe and its complexity to be too astounding to just be so from the lesser, and so they must question it, 'answering' it with something all the more astounding, but don't question that since they've granted immunity to its prosecution by merely just declaring it to be supernatural and hyperphysical, and, to protect it even more add infinite scope to its Mind such that it couldn't even be any more astonishing and then readily accept that in place of the now infinitesimal scope of the universe in comparison that they wouldn't accept in the first place.
You said it all in just one sentence! A prosaic, almost poetical TOE. Still... I thought so too. Somehow, this robs the universe of meaning, whatever that means, and however full of meaning it is!
A great meaning would be restrictive, but, more noteably, it would have to come from a God-Mind that is way too complex to be Fundamental, and so there is no overall meaning to the existence of the universe, plus, regardless, the universe comes and goes, so its beginning didn't ultimately mean anything, although we had to study it to see if it did.
What meaning can we get out of the Mandatory Eternal Existent that cannot not be, beyond that it makes 'God' unnecessary? Well, it's not like it had a choice, so beingness is not its message, yet, as a local meaning our wills drive us to survive and be, which was no picnic in the old days.
Living can finally be rewarding in these modern times in places where it isn't still barbaric or greatly stressing, so all I can come up with is that experiencing life happily is close to being the only benefit to come out of the whole meaningless shebang.
Yeah, we must make the meaning ourselves. There is no meaning inherent to the universe. And how many suffering already has been done in the name of meaning... "It means shebang!" "Nono, it means kadoink!"... "What you mean, you/^%$%^! ?", and a fight to death follows. I'm not looking for a universal meaning, but somehow, without a god(s), being intelligent beings, I can't imagine how come the universe is there. With all beautiful stuff in it. The intricacies of quantum fields, spacetime, life, etc. As the Poetic Universe you know what I mean! I don't look for meaning in god(s), I don't even care about them, or take them as pillar for my life. But somehow there must be a pillar of the universe. In any case, not the traditional one and only God. They exist, but I leave them alone, and they leave me alone. So why should I talk about them altogether? Indeed, why? We can better care about the creation itself. And enjoy and wonder about it.
We, of the endless forms most beautiful,
Are stunned that our glass to the brim is full,
Lifeâs wine coursing through us, as magical,
On this lovely, rolling sphere so bountiful.
Lifeâs a web, of whos, whys, whats, and hows,
Stretched as time between eternal boughs.
Gossamer threads bear the beads that glisten,
Each moment a sequence of instant nows.
Memoryâs ideas recall the last heard tone;
Sensation savors what is presently known;
Imagination anticipates coming sounds;
The delight is such that none could produce alone.
Wow! I wished our leaders had that vision. If one needs leaders at all! There seems to be no feeling for the wonders of nature to be left these days. Great poem! I even tried to read it aloud. It flows nicely, like life itself should.
Exactly! Before the Big Bang Theory, most scientists, including Einstein assumed that the physical universe had always existed ; although perhaps cyclical, but not progressive. But the evidence for expansion from an infinitesimal point (something from nothing), undermined their faith in a stable static predictable universe. :nerd:
Necessary Being :
Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (âBeingâ),
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Parmenides-Greek-philosopher
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Yes. That's why I avoid postulating humanoid deities that, even though presumed immortal, are not necessarily eternal. Leaving open the question of turtle-like regression. Instead, my hypothetical "Programmer" is defined as Meta-physical -- hence not locked in the cycle of birth & death -- and as Enfernal (eternal & infinite) -- neither progressive not regressive, merely Potential. You may ask how I know that? I don't. I merely infer the definitive attributes of a Necessary Being. I can't prove empirically that there IS such a Being. But, I can prove Logically, that there must be a Necessary Being. :wink:
In answering to this pillar, we are bounded by not going backwards in having it to be even more inexplicable, on the one hand, and on the other hand to have it be doable in a simple manner but wishfully somewhat beyond brute force.
The fallback can be the multi-verse but no one can show that yet.
We see in photosynthesis that the electrons find the most efficient path among all the possible paths in superposition, that path winning out.
Perhaps, since the Eternal Existent with no beginning can't have any input going into it as a design, the default is every path possible, as like a giant wave function superposed, and what paths keep going the furthest with a high novelty return reach the winners' circle⌠whereat, as a pedestal, not a pillar, the winning potential paths somehow get activated by some criteria into Big Bangs.
Or else, who cares, since we can't get blamed for not knowing how all became. I'd really rather just make art compositions, write books, and have romance.
That's the best attitude indeed! :smile: F them gods...
Verdi,
Veni, vidi, velcro: I came, I saw, I stuck around.
There is a theory about multiple big bangs, I don't know what it is called and how is it theoreticized.
There is also a theory which say the universe isn't ever expanding but rather expanding up to some point and then again shrinking to initial state to form a new infinitely dense mass to produce a new BB.
These 2 theories if merged together may form a new more plausible theory that could explain infinite amount of BB that follow the same cause and shouldn't break the laws of physics (except "infinitely dense mass")
Unfortunately shrinking universe is not observed and dark matter (which is responsible for expansion) is unknown.
:lol:
A shrinking universe is no necessary condition for a new big bang to occur. Big bangs can follow each other up even if the current universe has accelerated away to infinity.
Just to be precise: dark matter is normal matter that can't be seen, like all kinds of non-observed hypothetical particles, or better, primordial black holes:
https://www.livescience.com/dark-matter-made-of-black-holes.html
Dark matter keeps galaxies together and dark energy pushes them apart at an ever increasing rate.
What do you mean by this? how can there be BB if the universe never stops expanding?
Quoting Verdi
Indeed, my mistake, I confused the 2.
There is a model, the pyrotechnic universe, in which our universe is a 3d brane in a 4d space, and there is another such 3d brane floating near. If the galaxies have accelerated away from each other, to infinity, the two virtual empty 3d spaces approach each other, which results in a new big bang. The two move away again and inflation is stopped, after the same happens again (expansion of stars and accelerating away after).
See here: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Pyrotechnic-Universe-Kallosh-Kofman/48c65d9dfd514d6fc92d9e52da8d28b913f4c49c
I'm not in love with this model, based on string theory, in which I don't believe, but have a somewhat similar view. The two universes have to approach each other everywhere to an incredibly high precision. I like the negative tension part though and the embedding in a higher dimension. Could explain dark energy.
lol me neither, string theory and multiverse is a good story for kids before sleep.
:lol:
Indeed. And also for me...
Next imagine you have two figures representing squares labeled ?. And ?. With a middle a square seperating the two, ?. Let ?. be the contained nothingness between the two objects. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson will point out you have just quantified nothingness, which is therefore not really a nothingness especially if it is taking up space. Therefore, for this problem, we must remove ?. completely from the equation.
This would plug the new equation as just ?. directly across from ? with no space between them. Now there really is NOTHING between them, but themselves. But then, does ?. (Read: nothingness,) actually go? Because the nothingness itself is now effecting how ?. and ?. Interact with one another. And as such has properties in the way in which it effects one another. As much as ? and ? may exist seperately from each other without synthetic relation, they each have a synthetic relation with the nothingness present, i.e ?.so while ? is not demonstrated physically it is ultimately there, and ultimately creating a relationship between to two objects. This nothingness, which is colourless odorless touchless, and unobservable by its very absence of atoms is still a "thing" in as much as it is a "nothing." It is nothing in the sense of it being a lack of physicality, but it cannot be a nothingness in-itself as it is intellectually understood.
This reminds me of a point Descartes brought up in which Descartes could understand the idea of certain impossible geometric figures but not visualise it. In the same sense, there is the experience of understanding what nothing is, yet without ever experiencing such a thing. Nothingness exists a priori.
For what we might call "true nothingness" would appear to us to be an impossibility, for it's complete absence seems to defy all logic that I am aware of. Nothingness as described before is both non physical yet having a relationship with the physical world. This "nothingness" exists outside of human experience, but not outside of human thought. As such, the idea of a God, an ultimate thing or being that puts all universal laws into place is not contradicted by nothingness. As "true nothingness" is an impossibility, and nothingness itself as described with ? still has an effect on the relationship of objects despite not being physical.
Maybe this is bad Philosophy, but if you're interested in correcting me or engaging with me I'm happy to learn and change my stance. Or if this didn't make sense.
What you described is the same thing as:
Zero is not nothing, it's a number with no value!
Zero represent "no count" or "no value" but it's still a number.
One has value, it's count is 1 for each
Problem is however, for zero to become anything else it must be added to something ex. 0 + 1 = 1
however 0 + 0 = 0 is still zero, so nothing come out of nothing, there must be something to get any result.
Quoting SpinOwOza
Indeed, that would be absence of number 0, true nothing.
It's not just "religious thinkers" who extend their inquiring minds beyond the limited scope of space-time. Many non-religious scientists are also not willing to be bound by physical restraints and provable postulations, when their imagination can make quantum leaps into the Great Unknowable beyond the Big Bang beginning. String Theory, Big Bounce, Multiverse, Many Worlds, Bubble Universes, etc. Can those conjectures be dismissed as "religious non-sense", simply because they are literally "super-natural" (outside of knowable Nature) and "hyper-physical" (meta-physical) and "infinite" (external to space-time)? They are literally super-Science in that they go beyond the pragmatic & legal limits of the scientific method. But then, philosophers are not sworn to abide by the laws of Science.
I would think that a practicing programming poet would feel a kinship with those who explore imaginative What-Ifs instead of just prosaic What-Is. Poetry is not subject to empirical testing, only to subjective meaning. Poetry is neither True nor False, but Fictional Facts that resonate with human feelings. My "religion", if you insist on calling it by that name, is to appreciate the poetry of Reality and Ideality. Philosophy is an onerous search for hidden truths, but Poetry reveals the truths that are right in front of us. Poetry doesn't have to prove anything to you ; it makes no claim to objectivity. :cool:
[i]As a moralist, Plato disapproves of poetry because it is immoral, as a philosopher he disapproves of it because it is based in falsehood. He is of the view that philosophy is better than poetry because philosopher deals with idea / truth, whereas poet deals with what appears to him / illusion.
Despite the clear dangers of poetry, Socrates regrets having to banish the poets. He feels the aesthetic sacrifice acutely, and says that he would be happy to allow them back into the city if anyone could present an argument in their defense.[/i]
âThat which is impenetrable to us really exists. Behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion.â ? Albert Einstein
What happened before the Big Bang? :
Before the beginning
https://www.space.com/what-came-before-big-bang.html
"According to a recent survey, the most popular question about science from the general public was: what came before the Big Bang?"
Throughout history, and probably pre-history, humans have generally agreed that the notion of a Creator makes sense. What they argued about was specific attributes (human form?) & interests (chosen people) of that axiomatic deity. Only since the Enlightenment has the concept of a meaningless godless world become imaginable. Ironically, in that case the rational designing deity is typically replaced with, not Nothing, but irrational random accidents & chaotic cosmic coincidences. Personally, I don't accept the specific god-models & creeds of most religions, but I also can't accept the notion of an accidental real world with laws & organisms. Something from Nothing, non-sense! There must be something out there. :smile:
Yes, nonsense, and worse nonsense if they aren't referring to something physical.
I agree 100%! String theory even invented a string landscape with 10exp500 possible universes to be chosen from at random, which one day just must give rise to our universe. It (ST) merely places it's ignorance in a virtually infinite domain. Which only goes to show how infinitely stupid the theory is. Even if..., then from where that landscape made its entrance? In a sense that model looks like a model of God. On closer look... no! There must Indeed something out there. And the universe is proof.
True, but trivial. What we dialog about on The Philosophy Forum is literally "non-sense" and "beyond physical". Look at the topics --- how many are about "something physical"?
Metaphysics is all about Non-Sense. It's what feckless philosophers do : talk about things-that-are-not-things, but ideas-about-things. And when Poets write about Feelings, Qualities, Love, and other illusions & delusions, they are also doing Metaphysics. Philosophers and Poets don't build monuments or cure cancer. All they do is spout abstract non-sense to each other. Are you guilty of such extra-sensory time-wasting? :joke:
MetaPhysics :
The title was probably meant to warn students of Aristotle's philosophy that they should attempt Metaphysics only after they had mastered âthe physical onesâ, the books about nature or the natural worldâ
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
Meta-Physics :
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
"Metaphysics, it turns out, is the science of essence." [not objects]
Metaphysics : " It is an inquiry to the nature of the Reality as a whole." [not the parts]
"Metaphysics is the philosophical investigation of the ultimate nature of reality." [not proximate]
True, but true.
Quoting Gnomon
No, my main categories are the human condition, science, and the universe. I don't post the non physical.
Are Love & Hate included in the "human condition"? Can you show me a picture of such "physical" things? Are questions about the "human condition" limited to Quantitative physics & chemistry, or do they include the intangible Qualia that discriminate between "animal condition" or "vegetable condition" and "human condition"? Does your "universe" include "happiness" or "sorrowfulness", or "ugliness", or any of a zillion other mental states? Does your "Science" include Principles that are universals, not particulars? If so, what's physical about a Principle? :wink:
Admittedly, some posters on this forum seem to imagine they are doing physics, when they take a Materialist or Naive Realist philosophical stance. But, that frame-of-Mind itself is still Meta-physical, unless you know of a physical instance of an Attitude. :joke:
-ness. a native English suffix attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns denoting quality and state
Note -- are "abstractions" real & physical? Can they be found in Brains and dissected? Or, are they limited to abstract Minds, and analyzed rationally?
Naive Realism :
In philosophy of perception and philosophy of mind, naĂŻve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism
What's going on here, in physical terms? :
All is physical. The Earth is physical and it physically gave rise to life and then a long physical time went by during which physical happenings went on⌠In the present day, life is higher and more diverse; so, life is purely physical in that all that progressed in between was physical. For example, consciousness is physical.
In short, there was once no life on Earth and now there is.
In the picture, Socrates is being given hemlock because he spoke too much nonsense about some invisible non physical goings on being so.
In other words, "God" (however you define it) is logically necessary but completely unknown?
If yes, explanation of God forks into 2 possible parts:
1. God is necessary but does not reveal or manifest it self.
2. God exists and it reveals or manifests itself.
Point 1 is critical because the question is: Why does God not reveal or manifest itself?
Point 2 leads to religious revelations, that is specific religions we have today.
For point 1, there are 2 possible explanations:
A. God does not want or is unable to reveal\manifest itself.
B. God existed but no longer exists.
For point 2, there is only one logical path
A. Logically only one religion (revelation) can be true and all other are necessary false.
Do you have anything to add or to correct these propositions? and if not what would be your conclusion and why?
Physicalism is indeed a fairly common philosophical position among Materialists. But Quantum & Information Theories have undermined the confident assumptions of that outdated Classical worldview. My own worldview is still monistic, but the "single substance" is now invisible Information, not tangible matter. The "material" element of reality is what we see with our senses, but the "form" is only known via the sixth sense of Reason. Quantum scientists never actually see anything in the quantum realm, they infer such things as Quarks & Quantum Fields from mathematical reasoning. Even the so-called "particles" of QFT are "virtual" (i.e. potential or imaginary or Platonic forms). Of course, the quantum foundation of Reality remains under the purview of Physics. But it is so close to nothing that quantum Information theory overlaps with the concerns of Philosophy. Like poets, quantum scientists use concrete metaphors to describe their indescribable abstractions. :nerd:
Physicalism is a form of ontological monismâa "one substance" view of the nature of reality as opposed to a "two-substance" (dualism) or "many-substance" (pluralism) view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism
Aristotle analyses substance in terms of form and matter. The form is what kind of thing the object is, and the matter is what it is made of.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
Quantum Field :
In theoretical Physics, a quantum field is a metaphorical mathematical "structure", not an actual place, to allow scientist to understand ghostly things they can't see. The field is imaginary and has no physical material, but only Virtual particles that have the potential to become real.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/index.html
Quantum Philosophy :
https://theconversation.com/quantum-philosophy-4-ways-physics-will-challenge-your-reality-150175
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Yes. And posters on this forum are still arguing about such non-physical non-sense, such as Life or Death. :cool:
Socrates spent his early years studying astronomy, geometry and other areas of sciences. ... Disappointed Socrates turned his attention to the study of the human character.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=science+and+socrates
Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics
___Carlo Rovelli, theoretical physicist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-philosophy-needs-physics/
Yes. Like the Quarks of sub-atomic theory, the First Cause is logically necessary, but known only by rational inference. Some people claim to "know" God directly & personally via meditation or prayer or revelation. But that is a Gnostic form of "knowing" (by faith) instead of the usual knowing by physical experience. Personally, I don't find those alternative methods useful, but if it works for you, who am I to denigrate your subjective knowledge. :cool:
Quarks :
any of a number of subatomic particles carrying a fractional electric charge, postulated as building blocks of the hadrons. Quarks have not been directly observed but theoretical predictions based on their existence have been confirmed experimentally.
They see the jets of the quarks. The virtual particles are but the non-quantum level excitations that can't be at a stable quantum rung of energy and so they collapse rather instantly. We make all sorts of devices based on QFT.
The physical did it all on the physical Earth, forming life from none, unto the complexity of todayâs life. It didnât need any help from a ânon-physical, and it couldnât even receive any ânon-physicalâ input because it canât entertain the ânon-physicalâ, plus the ânon-physicalâ canât speak the physical.
This is also what doomed Decartesâ distinct mental and physical realms: they couldnât exchange energy.
The addition of a ânon physicalâ or 'intangible' only enlarges the question to produce a regress.
Life and death are as physical as can be for the Earthly creatures.
A scientific poem on the quantum 'vacuum' first cause physical example:
[b]On the One and Only Base Existence
Prolog[/b]
In this lost haunt on the Orion arm
Of the galaxy, safe from the coreâs harm,
The philosophers meet in the forum,
As sleuth-hounds unweaving the Cosmic yarn.
We search for the Start of the Universe,
The End, the Before, the After, the Kinds,
The Measures, and All That Lies Between:
The Music of the Spheresâ Magnificat.
[hide="Reveal"]We follow every single avenue,
Whether itâs brightly lit or a dark alley,
Exploring one-ways, no-ways, and dead-ends,
Until cornered where the Truth is hiding.
Since we all became of this universe,
Should we not ask who we are, whence we came?
Insight clefts nightâs skirt with its radianceâ
The Theory of Everything shines through!
We are ever in touch with the unknown,
For thatâs ever the reach of science shown.
Reality is grasped by focusing
On what interacts with what and the means.
There is a realm of happenings, not things,
For âthingsâ donât remain the same on timeâs wings.
What remains through time are processesâ
Relations between different systems.
An Eternal Basis has to be so,
For a lack of anything cannot sow,
Forcing there to be something permanent,
As partless, from which the particles grow.
Consider quantum fields of waves atop
One another: waves are continuous,
And so qualify as Fundamental;
Quantized lumps are particles; they move.
Note that there is no other absolute:
Newtonâs fixed space and time got Einsteinâs boot;
Particle spigots making fields are mute;
Classic fields have no fundamental loot.
Thereâs a lightness to elemental being
Since any more would have to be of parts,
And thus go beyond the fundamental arts.
The vacuum puffs of energy are small.
On the Forced Defaults for the Only Existence
There can only be the one Existence,
Forced, with no option for it not to be,
Which is no mystery because a âNilâ
Cannot be, even as spacers within.
There is neither âFullâ nor âNullâ,
But a lightness of being near âZeroâ,
As thatâs what the universe amounts to,
Nor âNilâs kin as âStillâ, since thereâs constant change.
This must-be partless Existence Eterne
Canât end, so it must remain as itself,
Transmuting into multiplicity
Of the temporary as âelementariesâ.
Since The Eterne has to be, of not ânullâ,
âSupernatural Magicâ isnât required;
So, thereâs only the natural as the base;
One degree of freedom is its forced default.
Motion is a must, or naught would happen;
It canât have parts, so itâs continuous;
No end, it must eâer return to itself.
There canât be anything else but it.
It is everywhere, with no gaps of âzilchâ;
It waves, as is ubiquitous in nature,
Rearranging to the elementary
Particles at stable rungs of quanta.
Only quantum fields fit the criteria;
Particles as spigots failed to flow,
Newtonâs âSpaceâ and âTimeâ disappeared via
Einsteinâs relativity special and general.
Quantum field points that must spring up and down
Form the fieldâs waves by dragging on others.
These sums of harmonic oscillations
Force the fixed quanta energy levels.
So the wave estimate proves to be right;
An electron/photon goes through both slits
Because it is a spread out field quantum.
Quantum jumps cannot be wave fractionals.
The universe is a large quantum field,
For the 25 quantum fields interact,
This containing the whole of physics.
Thereâs no âGodâsâ eye view; anything happens.
The anything of the massive universe
Is a lot of needed extravagant junk,
For on Earth the right conditions obtained,
Our planet being where and what it has to be.
Cosmic and biological evolution were forced,
Stars collecting the elementaries,
Producing all the atomic elements
That went on toward molecules, cells, and more.
All this took 13.5 billion years,
Since, again, there were no hoodoo shortcuts.
Life and consciousness emerged, no âMojoââ
Since long ago on Earth they were not there!
Our planet is very good at promoting life,
But it is much better at extinguishing it.
Of the billions upon billions of organic things,
99.99% are no longer around here living.
Of all extinctions, the Permian was the worst.
245 million years ago, for 95% of species perished,
Suddenly disappearing from the fossil recording.
Life had almost come to a total obliterationing.
âHurray,â said the shrew; now I can evolve!
âYouâ were once a lucky shrew, darting all about,
But then attached to a favorable evolutionary lineâŚ
Every single one of your forbears on both sides
Being attractive enough to locate a loving mate,
And they fortunately had the good health to celebrate!
Our blind-fated path was the further paved
When disasters finished most of the species.
Far from a feature of Intelligent Design,
It opened up the space that was needed.
The Downfall of âBeyondâ and âExtraâ
âMagicâ has fallen by the wayside, it
As trancendence an intangible writ,
Unable to be distinct from matter,
Having to talk/walk the talk/walk of it.
An extra distinct realm isnât needed,
As âintangibleâ, âineffableâ, etc.,
For it only begs the questionâregress!â
And as separate couldnât have effect.
The âimmaterialâ and ânonphysicalâ
Havenât shown anything at all to date,
Plus, all the more theyâd have to be explained;
The âsupernaturalâ claim has to fail.
Five billion years ago there was no life
Or consciousness, and now they are both here,
Thus, they emerged, evolving during that time;
So, thereâs no need for any âhyperphysicalâ.
Whereâs the esoteric among atoms?
What inside their doings would be else wise?
Do molecules swirl into spooky states?
What their secret patterns hidden away?
The light atomic elements were prime,
And the stars made more, on up through iron,
And the rest were from collisions/novae;
So, what unknown secrets would they contain?
The âGodâ idea has fallen from its throne;
Forever quantum fieldsâ excitationsâ
Elementary quanta roll on the fields
That are everywhere and remain intact.
Epilog
The quantum fieldsâ unity is the Whole,
Being ever, exhausting Reality,
Unbreakable and Unmakeable,
As partless and continuous monads.
All that emerges is still the fields at heart,
Though secondary and temporary,
Arising and at some time returning;
The quantum fields are indivisible.
Quantum fields are the fundamental strokes
Whose excitations at harmonics cloak
The quanta with the stability
To persist and thus obtain mobility.
The elementary particles beget,
As letters of the Cosmic alphabet,
And combine in words to write the story
Of the stars, atoms, cells, and lifeâs glory.
Why Something?
Quantum states melt via uncertainty,
And this means that no quantum property
Can eâer be zeroâa precise amount,
And so it is that motion can neâer cease.
The Something
The quantum field is the bridge between âNilâ
And basic matter, and can neâer be still;
Thus the âvacuumâ is the quietest fieldâ
The closest approach to âNothingâ that can be.
No âNullâ nor Matter Full
âNothingâ had no chance to be the hero,
Plus QM scrubs the idea of zero
Out of the physical world of being;
âVacuumâ neâer sleeps, butâs eâer up to something.
A Mere Blip
But for the small quantum uncertainty,
The Cosmos sums to naught, its lunch being free:
No net electric charge; a weightless brick;
Minus-potential = plus-kinetic.
The Impossibles
Oh, those imaginings of what canât be!
Such as Nought, Stillness, and the Blockâs decree,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
The Unfixed Will, Blame, Fame, and Theity.[/hide]
Quoting Gnomon
This physical information, to speak of it in a holistic way that you might like, can operate without a programmer and her problematic regressâŚ
The Great 'IS' that is the monistic One would already have all possible realities of universes in it in a superposition, as it being Everything since what has no beginning can't have a direction inputted to it.
This is as a multi-verse, which also be deduced by another way: If their is a Fundamental One from which our universe came forth, the One ever remains and so it could just as well make another universe. Alternately, if one wants the universe to have been a spontaneous event, then more universes could become the same way. The âspontaneousâ can also be regarded as a capability that is the One.
Anyway, the One is as complete in its information in the same way that a Library of Babel would be in having all possible books. The overall information content is zero, but there is still all the information that could ever be.
Of course, in any universe that creates thinking life, such as in ours, the thinkers would wonder how such an apparently fine-tuned marvel could have happened.
The next philosophy to all this would be to explain which of all the possible universes get realized and actualized, and how, unless they all do.
As usual, your material-mind arguments are reasonable . . . from the classical Physicalism perspective. Through that ground-glass lens, only the physical senses make sense. And that's probably how non-rational animals see their world. Fortunately for reasonable people, theoretical Philosophy, unlike empirical Science, is not limited to the 5 senses (perception) for information (useful knowledge) about the world. Instead, it enlarges the scope of investigation by using the sixth sense of Rational Inference (conception). Only a rational mind can deal with the non-physical mysteries of existence, such as the "hard problem" of Consciousness. Physicalists can't see Consciousness, because they are looking through the transparent lens of Sentience.
By that meta-physical means, we now know how Mental (Information) and Physical (Matter) can exchange energy. And I'm not talking about reductive Shannon Information (digital bits), but holistic Conscious Information (holistic semantic meaning). From that angle, the Mental & Physical realms are distinct philosophical categories, while empirical Science has no category for the Mental aspects of the world. But if Information is indeed fundamental, as some physicists now infer, then Matter & Energy can be reduced to a single universal (monistic) substance : Information -- the power to transform. Pace Descartes *1.
Thus, the modern scope of Quantum & Information physics has been enlarged to encompass both the Mental (non-physical) and Material (physical) aspects of the real world. And to eliminate the need for an infinite regress of physical worlds, to explain how our cosmic domain could be born from an "undefined", hence non-physical, mathematical point of Potential. Pace PU. :nerd:
Property dualism :
It asserts that while mental states are physical in that they are caused by physical states, they are not ontologically reducible to physical states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism
Physics + Math = Is Information Fundamental? :
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/is-information-fundamental/
The mass-energy-information equivalence principle :
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.5123794
Energy is meta-physical Potential :
Scientists define âenergyâ as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Information transmission without energy exchange :
We show that it is possible to use a massless field in the vacuum to communicate in such a way that the signal travels arbitrarily slower than the speed of light and such that no energy is transmitted from the sender to the receiver. Instead, the receiver has to supply a signal-dependent amount of work to switch his detector on and off. Because of that, this kind of communication without energy exchange may be called "Quantum Collect Calling".
https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.3988
In mathematics, a singularity is a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined . . . . lacking differentiability or analyticity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(mathematics)
*1 Pace is Latin for âin peace,â and in footnotes it means something like âno offense intendedâ toward a person or source that you are contradicting.
Yes. From your Physicalist perspective, "God" is No-Thing. But in my Enformationism view, G*D is Every-Thing, and is necessarily self-existent. Even a tower-of-turtles multiverse would have to be self-created in order to lay the foundation for the tower *1. :smile:
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Yes. But in my thesis G*D is both Programmer and Program, both Creator and Creation, both Sculptor and Marble. This is the holistic worldview of PanEnDeism (all in god). And it's only reasonable if ALL is omni-potential Information -- both the power-to-enform and the substance enformed ; both Mind and Matter. Similar to Spinoza's "universal substance", except updated to allow for a Big Bang beginning. :halo:
Panendeism holds that God pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond space and time,
https://religion.wikia.org/wiki/Panendeism
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Yes, the omnipotential One is indeed timeless, spaceless, and super-posed. But the existence of our world implies that something transformed that omnidirectional Potential into an evolving world --- to collapse the superposition. In Quantum Physics that trigger is a measurement (technically, the decision of what to measure). No-Thing could not make such a fateful choice, but Every-Thing encompasses all possible worlds. And that essential "something" is what I call "Teleological Intention" (purpose ; design). Unfortunately, we time-bound creatures don't know the intended End of evolution. So, the term Eutaxiological may be more appropriate than "Teleological". Like the hero in the movie Tron, we don't know how the game will end, but we are motivated to win, i.e. to survive long enough to have an impact on the outcome. :sweat:
Superposition is the ability of a quantum system to be in multiple states at the same time until it is measured.
Note -- Superposition of a world-creating system can be in all possible states (infinity) and all possible times (eternity) until a non-random intention is chosen. How? In Infinity/Eternity all things are possible. :brow:
Teleological :
Purpose-driven evolution, as opposed to Eutaxiological, meaning simply that evolution must have had a First Cause, even if the Final Cause (purpose) is unknown.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page12.html
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Yes. And here's how that could have happened. :nerd:
The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
âmathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselvesâ.
http://bothandblog7.enformationism.info/page10.html
*1 Tower of Turtles -- an infinite regress of causation
You have recognized the multiverse. That accords well.
Quoting Gnomon
You have recognized the block multiverse. That is the answer! Accords well with timeless eternalism.
Quoting Gnomon
The superposition collapse problem is no longer needed for this direction of analysis, for it's more of a presentism notion for real time passing when measuring where a particle probably is.
Thus, all possible universes are real in the block multiverse, as timeless and all done, finished, most of them not having life or being outright flops. 'Everything' is a big spender overall, as well as in our universe of so much stuff!
Yes, but . . . the problem with the Multiverse conjecture is the same old Eternal Regress that you find hard to accept in anthro-morphic god-models. Also, how could something that is constantly changing and evolving be self-existent? That's the same old tower-of-turtles teaser.
Einstein's idealized Block Universe is indeed pictured as eternal, but it's also static : nothing new ever happens. Instead, all possibilities exist simultaneously & forever as inert potentials. In the dynamic Real physical world, that's impossible. But, in an Ideal Meta-physical realm, it's not only possible, but also logical (sequential cause & effect) ; as Plato implied in his descriptions of LOGOS.
That's why I interpret "Block Time" in terms of Aristotelian Potential, the notion of infinite possibility, which requires a trigger (First Cause) to actualize. Potential is not Real, but merely Ideal, until an intentional directional choice causes something specific to actualize. This is not magic, but similar to a physical phase change, such as liquid water to solid ice. The potential for solidity was always there in H2O, but an external trigger causes the change from Possible to Actual. Besides, as you pointed out : "Thus, all possible universes are real in the block multiverse, as timeless and all done, finished, most of them not having life or being outright flops".
The Materialism, Reductionism, Physicalism worldview leaves no role for Philosophy. In which case, this forum is a monumental waste of time, since we typically discuss things that are not things, but possibilities ; not actual or physical, hence unverifiable --- only arguable. Terence Green, in Philosophy Now, regarding A.J. Ayer and Logical Positivism says : "this is philosophy as a barren wasteland --- stripped of all that philosophy had . . . . traditionally been concerned with : why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live?". Logical Positivism has no answer for such illogical questions. Logic is about mechanical formal processes, but human Reason is about meaningful Forms (potential desiderata). Again, Green says about scientific Logical Positivism, "it can't deal with statements such as 'God exists'.". :nerd:
Desiderata : something that is needed or wanted. but does not yet exist.
Inert Potential : the voltage of an electric battery is simply a promise of future current. The promise is only fulfilled after some outside force completes the circuit, allowing useful current to flow. Eternal Ideal Potential likewise requires a Cause (intentional choice) to allow it to actualize into reality.
How come you are always referencing turtles when the buck clearly stops at my One as the base?
This Self-Existent, as the overall quantum field as the quantum vacuum, for example, doesn't go away as it rearranges into the elementaries.
The Block Universe is a picture of change, but anyway, back to the presentism-like cause and effect mentioned: Potential Everything would then still come about linearly in a dynamical real physical way.
The leap-frogging turtle metaphor applies to the implicit infinite regress when an eternal buck-stopping agent is denied. In religious arguments it's common to be challenged with "so who created your God?". But the question only makes sense if the deity is subject to the limitations of space-time and matter-energy. Most Christians have no problem answering with "my God is eternal and self-existent". But those who suggest a Multiverse or Many Worlds alternative would be embarrassed to respond with "so is my Multiverse". That sounds too much like "my Material god-substitute versus your Spiritual God". And physicality would logically require an infinite regression of world-cycles in space-time.
However, if your hypothetical One is -- like my ALL -- non-physical, then the turtle-cycle would be unnecessary. And that's why my hypothetical God-substitute is defined as "Ideal" instead of "Real", Which in traditional religious terms would be "Spiritual" instead of "Physical". It's my contention that the Jewish concept of "Spirit" was equivalent to the Greek notion of "Ideal". And both seemed to be referring to the mysterious force in Nature that we now call causal "Energy". It's invisible & intangible, and physical only in that it has observable effects on Matter. Infinite Potential covers all possibilities at once, with no need for physical cycles of reproduction or creation. Hence, the First Cause is like an eternal inexhaustible battery of pent-up energy that is loosed upon the world, only when a feedback circuit is made -- a space-time cycle.
As a similar non-physical notion, Einstein surprised many folks when he declared that Gravity was not a real force. Because everybody knew from personal experience that gravity pulls on real bodies with invisible rope. Even worse, his radical theory pictured Gravity as "warped space". Which makes as much sense as "curved nothingness". But pragmatic scientists eventually learned to go along with that blasphemy against Lord Newton. Yet, Alfred was not done with knocking the props out from classical physics. His outlandish ideas opened the door to Quantum Theory, which like quicksand has undermined the ancient Atomic Theory with invisible intangible Mathematical Fields as the fundamental reality of Physics.
Therefore, as a pragmatic idealist, I have learned to accommodate all those radical paradigm shifts, by accepting the view of an increasing number of physicists and cosmologists, that even those fundamental fields consist of nothing but Information. Which is that same "stuff" that used to exist only in metaphysical Minds. And now even the physical Brains that mysteriously generate invisible mind-fields are ultimately composed of, not things per se, but incorporeal relationships between things. In Math, we call those invisible geometric links "ratios". Which ironically are what we "know" only with our rational power of Reason.Thus, I conclude that the "One", the "All", the "First Cause", the "buck-stopper" is simply the Eternal Enformer. :nerd:
G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to LOGOS. Other names : ONE, ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Information :
Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between know-ledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting it via rational inference
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html
TWO SIDES OF SAME COIN
"why are we here? What should we do now that we are here? And how should we live?"
___Gnomon
Cool video! So the answer is Be Here Now? Don't worry about what was, or will be. Sufficient unto the day . . . . . . .
That's fine for some, but it's not 'God'; it's just the simple basis of the more complex as the Ground of Determination.
Quoting Gnomon
? The one and only basis remains; no regress.
Quoting Gnomon
Einstein's discovery of the quantum discreteness of photons proved true, so it was not outlandish.
The quantum fields are the basis of all the physical goings on in our universe, so they are physical. They are not made of math, but their physical operations are amenable to being described by math, the physical quantum fields results matching the math predictions, thus confirming the quantum fields.
Quoting Gnomon
We do see the mind-fields, and that is all we ever 'see'; they're as maps made in the brain process of consciousness.
Of course. That's the point of the Multiverse hypothesis. Instead of a First Cause, it's a more-of-the-same-forever infinite (no beginning or end) chain-of-causation --- or a cosmic Conga Line of turtles, if you prefer a more concrete image. :wink:
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Yes, but is the "One" physical & ever-changing, or meta-physical & omni-potential? :chin:
Quoting PoeticUniverse
True. But at the time it sounded unorthodox, hence "outlandish" (alien ; foreign) for the wave-propagation orthodoxy of the day. :smile:
Why No One Believed Einstein :
https://daily.jstor.org/why-no-one-believed-einstein/
Quoting PoeticUniverse
Is that what psychics "see" as the human Aura? What color is yours? Mine is boring beige. :joke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)
It remains as the physical One; its rearrangements are temporary; it doesn't make new substances; it is ever itself.
Eterneâs Great Wheel eâer whirls its energy,
It having to turn and return, to be,
'Transmuting', as neâer stillâeternally,
Into lifeâs temporary pattern-trees.
Moves of the Eterne dooms formsâ permanence;
But the patient time til their expiration
Restrains for some while the shapesâ destructance;
Thus they can slowly traverse lifeâs distance.
Quoting Gnomon
Not at all. It is the contents of consciousness.
Quoting Gnomon
"No salvation." â Gnomon
Would you your sparkle of Existence spend
Beyond The âVacuumââquick about it, Friend!
A Hair perhaps divides the False from Trueâ
And upon what, prithee, may all depend?
The Simple Hair divides the False and True;
Yes; and the single Alif is the clue,
As the Quantum Fieldâto the Treasure-house,
Though not adventure in The Masterâs brew.
Forget about the blame and also the fameâ
The Great Wheelâs not designed in any name,
Since, with no beginning, it neâer became;
Thus no Alif through Ye: itâs eâer the same.
My spirit to the Causeless was near blind:
Quoth I, âIf the Beginning you could findâ
The Alifâof word, phrase, and uni-verse,
Thou needs not the alphabetâallâs been mined.â
Seize the moment or lose its momentum,
Wearing time as your royal diadem;
Richly accelerate lifeâs momentous gem,
Letting your motto be âCarpe diemâ.
World does not pass by; you pass through it;
Clear your being so the treasure may arrive;
This spirit sparkles of a different light,
The gemstones are of a different mine,
Whose secret Presence through transient veins
Running Quicksilver-like fuels your gains;
Taking all shapes from fish to moon as
They change and perish allâbut It remains.
The best of all that is below the moon
And above the fish is beautyâs commune,
In her wine poured and sipped, all else forgone,
From Mah to Mahi, raptured noon to noon.
The Secret guessedâthen back behind the Fold
Immerst of Darkness round the Drama rollâd
Which, for the Pastime of Eternity,
Doth It all contrive, enact, and get told.
âTwas writ each time, whatever was to be,
By quill, unheeding bliss or misery, Â
Yea, writ upon each tablet universeâ
To murmur or resist is vanity.Â
Outputs must have inputs, they in turning
Becoming inputs to more fates churning,
Temporary; all is writ, on every path,
As in ours, so what must be will eâer spring.
Each morn springs thee over the wastelandâs brink,
And on timeâs sand you the oasis drink.
Lifeâs strange caravan through the desert winds,
Back toward Nothing; drinkâafore the stars sink.
O unenlightened race of humankind,
Ye are temporary, built on empty wind! Â
Yea, a mere nothing, hovering in the abyss,
Writ on water with smoke and fog, resigned!
And so in vain, down on the stubborn Floor
Of Earth, and up to Heavânâs unopening Door,
You gaze To-day, while You are Youâhow then
To-morrow, when You shall be You no more.(Omar direct)
Sounds like the TAO, or LOGOS, to which I compare my G*D concept. However, like Energy, G*D is not a physical object, but a functional process or flow. It's an "essence" not a physical substance. It's ineffable ; so you can't point to it and say "there it is". It's a holistic pattern of relationships, not an individual thing ; so you can know about it, but not see it. Therefore, as a system, I call it "Meta-Physical", in the sense that it is more than the sum of its physical parts. :smile:
TAO : [i]The Tao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the Universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the Universe balanced.
In all its uses, the Tao is considered to have ineffable qualities that prevent it from being defined or expressed in words.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao
Quoting PoeticUniverse
That's why I distinguish the meta-physical eternal TAO or G*D or LOGOS from the space-time bubble of the physical temporal world :
First begat in a Bang, destined to die in a Sigh . . . . . :cool:
Bounded by non-existent absolutes,
The Essence lies between the Null and Fullâ
As relations of all thatâs possible,
Exuding universes, first begat
In a Bang, destined to die in a sigh.
Isn't this more than 'Nothing'. Isn't it still a something in some kind of realm as above in that realm's level as tangible to that realm but not to ours?
Yes, but it's a mental something (subjective idea, not objective object). So such abstract universals as G*D or TAO don't fall under the category of physical scientific things. Instead, they are metaphysical philosophical non-things. Knowable, but non-tangible. Holistic all-things, but not reductive things. More than nothing, in the sense that Infinity is more than nothing. :smile:
Thing :
1. an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
2. an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
"The Way" is more than the pavement.
Too complicated to be the Basis of everything.
I'll just have to leave it all to be invisibleâŚ
The Eternal Saki
(First one is Omarâs, the rest are mine))
And fear not lest Existence closing your
Account, and mine, should know the like no more;
The Eternal Saki from that Bowl has pourâd
Millions of Bubbles like us, and will pour.
Yet worry you that this Cosmos is the last,
That the likes of us will become the past,
Space wondering whither whence we went
After the last of us her life has spent?
The Eternal Saki has formed trillions of baubles
Like ours, for eâerâthe comings and passings
Of which it ever emits to immerse
In the universal bubbles blown and burst.
So fear not that a debit close your
Account and mine, knowing the like no more;
The Eternal Source from its pot has pourâd
Zillions of bubbles like ours, and will pour.
What though the sky with its blue canopy
Doth close us in so that we can not see, Â
In the etern Cupbearerâs wine methinks
There float a myriad bubbles like to me.
So, as thus thou lives on yesterâs credit line,
In nowhereâs midst, now in this life of thine,
As of its bowl our cup of brew is mixed
Into the state of being thatâs called âmineâ.
Behind the Veil, being that which eâer thrives,
The Eternal âISâ has ever been alive,
For that which hath no onset cannot die,
Nor a point from which to have any guide.