How can something come from nothing?

@imans,

Sorry for any affront. It must be obvious by now that I simply cannot understand you, other than your vituperation, of course. This, BTW, will come as no surprise to my US counteparts who know I was born in New Jersey.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Re: imans (Post 5285222)
Sorry for any affront. It must be obvious by now that I simply cannot understand you, other than your vituperation, of course. This, BTW, will come as no surprise to my US counteparts who know I was born in New Jersey.

HEY!

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Oh, sorry Frank.

We all know it takes a real man to stay in Jersey

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

You say that "nothing is no thing". Is it meaningful to say also that nothing, in the sense of no thing, is everything? When I die, I like to tell myself, I will cease to be this particular thing that seems to be and return to what I was before I was born: everything. At the same time, of course, I become no-thing, i.e., instead of a particular something I become a general everything--which I really am even now, but being ego-centered "I" am not aware of it.

I KNOW THIS CANNOT BE PROVEN. It's simply what I believe.

Everything is all things (stuff). Stuff created by the no thing. That which was, is, and will be created all things. That "creator" didn't create that which always was, is, and will be (Himself). That "non-being" created all things (stuff). Therefore, I believe, all things came from nothing. I also believe that all will return to what we came from. In the same "place" at the same "time". This reality is a temporal one.

AGAIN THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE FOR MY personal REASON.

So hold the "liar hypocrite" comments imans.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Well put, Fresco. Let me state my position in the extreme: As you know, I am a radical sceptic and relativist in that I consider all human conceptualizations to reflect our nature, psychologically, culturally, historically, and most pervasively our very physiology. That is to say, all our conceptual activities are "species-bound". Nevertheless, we must suffer our limitations and forgo our intellectual ambitions to conceptualize reality in absolute terms. We must, instead, limit ourselves to the functional achievements of prediction and control. Our quest for "enlightenment", whatever that may be, must pursue mystical-intuitive realizations of conditions that reflect our deepest nature in ways that avoid abstract species-bound delusions. Such "realizations" must be, of course, ineffable and holistic insofar as they transcend language.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

"WE", "WE"
Who the **** is "WE"?
Speak for yourself JL and cease directing others! "WE should this, and 'WE' should that"
FFS guys - Speak for yourselves, not everyone!

2 Replies

@mark noble,

Whoa...and I thought you may have just been going through a rough patch on the Satan thread.

0 Replies

@mark noble,

O.K., Mark. You are exempted.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

(Belated reply)

Agreed ! And the inclusive "we" is embodied in the phrase "species bound". As far as we can tell, we are the only species which uses manipulation of linguistic tokens as part of its unique ability to alter its environment and it therefore makes absolute sense to argue that "explanation" for this would transcend such symbolic operations i.e. would be "ineffable".

(NB Those who argue for "animal language" cannot claim a manipulative element for them in terms of creative sequencing).

1 Reply

@fresco,

Yes, I can't imagine non-human animals using "language" propagandistically.

0 Replies

@imans,

Like everyone one else, I cannot give a scientific or logical answer. I'll just quote from my article "Agnostic Apoplectics - the Ant, Mr. Smith and a Bikini" posted elsewhere here. By the way, it was flamed for being too long and not "dumbing it down" enough. So you will never know about the Bikini. Oh well.
Part 1: The Prime Mover.
This is what those in the philosophical trade call the First Thing That Existed. We live in a causal world and think in a causal way so one must assume the concepts of First and Only.
The Prime Mover either always existed or created itself for no other reason other than it felt like it. Its true nature is beyond human comprehension, scientific investigation and proof.
However chaotic and purposeless the Universe science say it is, it generated intelligence (or what we fondly call intelligence) within it with us. If it can do so now, it could have done so earlier. So at the start of the thesis, I think it is an honorable draw between the Wise Hen and the Dumb Egg.
What is the mechanism of the Prime Mover?
If it always existed then one reasonably assumes it was not subject to time. Assuming Einstein, that seems to make sense. But then it gets silly. In order to detonate into the Big Bang it would required an enormous store of energy. But where does energy come from? According to school physics, it comes from any mechanism doing Work. But to work requires interaction and reaction with secondary entities such as internal components or other nearby entities. But the Prime Mover, by definition, was a singularity, unique and alone.
It could not Move otherwise energy would flow and space would be created and time would start running. And it would begin to die. Nor, without any components, it would have anything to trigger the Big Bang. It would be like a grenade with no fuse or explosive. So, to sum up, an immortal Mover cannot create and a creating Mover cannot be immortal.
This argument assumes Einstein’s theories. But if there was no energy, space, mass or light, where does the E=mc2 come from?

1 Reply

@Horselord,

You must really pay attention to the expression "created itself"...take a deep breath, think about it, reset, and then come back !

0 Replies

@ripple,

Quote:

If something "happened" then something must have made this happen. This something can by definition not be nothing. So how can something come from nothing (for example the creation of the universe)?

Theoretically, the Universe is never empty.

In Einstein's general relativity it turns out that gravity arises not just from mass (what Newton thought) but also from energy---any kind of energy. Basically, this reflects Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2, which shows that energy (E) and mass (m) are basically the same kind of "substance". Now here are the two key points:

(1) In quantum mechanics,we observe that empty space can actually have energy. Why? Well, the uncertainty principle allows even empty space to harbor a lot of activity: particles popping into and out of existence very quickly and so forth. This is the "zero-point" energy we refer to. It gives rise to energy even in what appears to be perfectly empty space.

(2) It turns out that this strange energy, as all energy does, gives rise to a certain amount of gravity. However, the weird thing is that the gravity it gives rise to is REPULSIVE; not attractive as in "ordinary" gravity. Repulsive gravity is able to force space to repel itself---forcing the universe to expand as it "runs away from itself" due to the repulsive gravity coming from zero-point energy.

The Universe, in theory, is forever and forever, reinventing itself...it expands and collapses ad infinitum (Big Bang theory). We are on a roll, learning more and more......who knows, a decade from now there might be another theory....

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Moment-in-Time wrote:

(2) It turns out that this strange energy, as all energy does, gives rise to a certain amount of gravity. However, the weird thing is that the gravity it gives rise to is REPULSIVE; not attractive as in "ordinary" gravity. Repulsive gravity is able to force space to repel itself---forcing the universe to expand as it "runs away from itself" due to the repulsive gravity coming from zero-point energy.

Where did you hear this? Can you provide a source link?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

@Moment-in-Time,
Moment-in-Time wrote:

(2) It turns out that this strange energy, as all energy does, gives rise to a certain amount of gravity. However, the weird thing is that the gravity it gives rise to is REPULSIVE; not attractive as in "ordinary" gravity. Repulsive gravity is able to force space to repel itself---forcing the universe to expand as it "runs away from itself" due to the repulsive gravity coming from zero-point energy.

Where did you hear this? Can you provide a source link?

Hiya, Rosborne. I cannot provide a link as such because this cosmological/High Energy Theoretical Physics research is part of the broader concept embraced by one of my High Energy Theoretical Physics professors, Brian Greene, Columbia University in the City of New York.

Professor Greene has written a number of books on this concept: "The Elegant Universe," "Icarus at the Edge of Time," "The Fabric of the Cosmos," "The Hidden Reality," and a related PBS television special where Greene also appeared on The Big Bang Theory episode. (Many of these books may be loaned out by your nearest public library.)

Much of what we thought we knew about our universe is still undergoing much intense theoretical research but this concept that the Universe is never entirely empty has been widely accepted for a few years now. Greene, Ph.D. in Physics and a Ph.D. in Mathematics, is continuing in Einstein's footsteps.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

I'm familiar with Brian Greene and some of his work. I've read some of his books. But I don't remember his saying anything about repulsive gravity coming from zero point energy in any context other than speculation. Are you saying that he specified actual evidence for this, or are you relating a section in which he was speculating what zero point energy "might" do with regard to gravity?

Have you actually been in one of his classes? I never met him in person, only read his books.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Quote:

I'm familiar with Brian Greene and some of his work. I've read some of his books. But I don't remember his saying anything about repulsive gravity coming from zero point energy in any context other than speculation.

This theoretical physics concept is widely known throughout the physics world and is accepted as the most current belief.

Quote:

rosborne979 wrote;
Are you saying that he specified actual evidence for this, or are you relating a section in which he was speculating what zero point energy "might" do with regard to gravity?

Professor Brian Greene is a physics theoretician, and as such his *theoretical* work is highly respected. To answer your other question, I have taken classes under Professor Greene.

You, Rosborne979, appear brimming over with questions. I don't intend to get into a physics discussion. I merely answered a poster's question as to "how can something come from nothing." Many times when answering a physics question on these types of forums there are those who wish to pursue it further....I do not. The myriad exciting topics which appear here interest me more...this is why I post here and there.

If you would like to contact Professor Brian Greene, his address is: 538 West 120th Street, Theoretical Physics, Columbia University, New York, NY. 10027.

Professor Greene has appeared numerous times on PBS discussing and explaining the Universe. He is quite the entertainer. Why don't you pose your question to him via a letter.

Best

0 Replies

Regarding the OP, "something" and "nothing" are abstractions found nowhere (another abstraction) in the Universe (another). They may be useful to think with but they are not very descriptive.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Oh, great! Now we have nobody talking about how something may have come from nothing. Laughing

1 Reply

@neologist,

oh man...now you made me laugh my azz off with that one..simple but effective ! Laughing

2 Replies

How can something come from nothing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know