hackey lad Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 6 minutes ago, Waldo said: One thing I'm struggling with, perhaps someone can enlighten me; relates to the idea of something from nothing, how the universe was created from nothing etc... To my mind, nothing means nothing; as in, nothing physical, no matter, no anti-matter, no energy, certainly no time, or anything akin to laws of physics, or laws by which something may pop in to existence out of nothing. How then does science explain something from nothing? Or do the scientific community really mean 'something from, nothing tangible, but not quite actually nothing'? Don’t know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trastrick Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Waldo said: One thing I'm struggling with, perhaps someone can enlighten me; relates to the idea of something from nothing, how the universe was created from nothing etc... To my mind, nothing means nothing; as in, nothing physical, no matter, no anti-matter, no energy, certainly no time, or anything akin to laws of physics, or laws by which something may pop in to existence out of nothing. How then does science explain something from nothing? Or do the scientific community really mean 'something from, nothing tangible, but not quite actually nothing'? It can't. Humans can't conceive of "nothing", "infinity", "space", time", or even "motion". The theory of Quantum Mechanics tell us that, at the lowest scales, particles don't "move'" in the accepted sense. They just go from occuping one position to another, in quantum leaps. (see Zeno's Paradox) Infinities come in an infinity of different sizes. (The infinite number of whole numbers is greater than the infinity of odd numbers, even numbers etc.) A great man siad that the "electron exists in a different space from you and I". The lowly mayfly that is born, mates, and dies in a single day, has a different concept of time than you and I. We can use these concepts in our technology, but nobody actually understands the how, or the why. We are just the latest dominant form of life on earth, bent on killing the lower froms for food, and our fellow apes in wars. We can no more understand the cosmos, than the spider in his cave (See Plato) can concieve of a computer, a car, or Elvis. The good news is that he doesn't need to. Like us he controls the environment he occupies, and is presumably happy. The universe an unexplained miracle, that defies the scientists "Holy Grail" to come up with a "theory of everything". So when the "Sience Guy" comes on your telly, and tells you in one hour how it all works, take him with a grain of salt And don't let these know-it-alls, take away from your children, the sheer wonder and speculation when they look up in the sky on a dark cloudles night. Their speculations may be as valid as anyone's, and they could be inspired to find the answers for the next generation. Edited April 25, 2022 by trastrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 4 hours ago, Waldo said: ... How then does science explain something from nothing? Or do the scientific community really mean 'something from, nothing tangible, but not quite actually nothing'? It can't as yet. It's similar in the way of how people want to try and attribute a God as the maker of the Universe and then when asked who created God they are stumped. One of the reasons it also a fallacy to say the Universe is an unexplained miracle. Unexplained in that its not completely understood so far then yes, as a miracle then no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 45 minutes ago, Dromedary said: It can't as yet. It's similar in the way of how people want to try and attribute a God as the maker of the Universe and then when asked who created God they are stumped. One of the reasons it also a fallacy to say the Universe is an unexplained miracle. Unexplained in that its not completely understood so far then yes, as a miracle then no. The question, ‘Who created God?’ assumes God is a finite created entity. Logically, this question does not make sense. God, by definition, in the traditional theological sense, is an uncreated, necessary, eternal being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 32 minutes ago, Baz1 said: The question, ‘Who created God?’ assumes God is a finite created entity. Logically, this question does not make sense. God, by definition, in the traditional theological sense, is an uncreated, necessary, eternal being. The question may not seem logical to a believer but that traditional theological sense is based on a belief system and as such does not need proof. The universe itself could also follow the same rules and may also be an uncreated, eternal necessity to host life and may have always existed as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delayed Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 On 19/04/2022 at 14:55, Baron99 said: That would be an ecumenical matter. Yours, Father Ted Crilly. Careful now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trastrick Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 38 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said: Technical point, the infinity of whole numbers (integers) is the same size as the infinity of odd numbers, which is the same size as the infinity of even numbers. The infinity of real numbers is bigger, and that's where the whole infinite hierarchy of infinities kicks off - according to Cantor anyhow. But doesn't the fact that we're talking about this show that humans can in some sense conceive of "infinity"? Even if it's an open question as to which version(s) of infinity, if any, can be applied to the real world (which is where Zeno's Paradox comes in). Another open question is the sense in which these infinities, or any other mathematical objects, "exist" - but that's a whole different rabbit hole. Correct, I was simplifying for sake of brevity. Mathematics refers to numbers as Real numbers, Whole Numbers, Natural numbers, Rational and Irational numbers, Integers, Complex numbers, Ordinal numbers, Cardinal numbers, and Zero as an Imaginary number. It's a number zoo out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz1 Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 3 hours ago, Dromedary said: The question may not seem logical to a believer but that traditional theological sense is based on a belief system and as such does not need proof. The universe itself could also follow the same rules and may also be an uncreated, eternal necessity to host life and may have always existed as well. No, because we know the universe came into existence. The universe couldn't create itself and let's say this universe was U1, and was 'created' by U2 , which was created by U3 etc .. so what you'll end up with is infinite regress. An untreated first cause is the best explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted April 25, 2022 Author Share Posted April 25, 2022 2 hours ago, CaptainSwing said: Well it's over 40 years since I studied this stuff so I'm more than a bit rusty, but I think the idea is that the uncertainty principle does indeed allow things to pop out of nothing, for very short periods of time, in the form of matter/anti-matter pairs of "virtual particles". Forces are held to be due to the exchange of these virtual particles (IIRC). It's a moot point whether this counts as an 'explanation', or an 'observation', or "a theory that's consistent with previous observations and able to predict other observations". But I don't know whether this has anything to do with the universe itself popping into existence! And I'm happy to be corrected if there's anybody out there who's better informed about physics than I am. But if there is this uncertainty principle dynamic, then that itself is something. Whatever principle, dynamic, law; that prompts something from nothing; it seems to me its not actually nothing, because the principle, dynamic, or law, that is at play, is itself something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted April 25, 2022 Share Posted April 25, 2022 15 minutes ago, Baz1 said: No, because we know the universe came into existence. Yes but it may have also existed before this present formation. The Big Bang theory which we rely on to describe its formation from a singularity is just one version of how it may have formed but some of the science behind it may not be 100% correct. In that, we are still at the learning stage and at the moment it is a best guess scenario given what we know so far. 15 minutes ago, Baz1 said: The universe couldn't create itself and let's say this universe was U1, and was 'created' by U2 , which was created by U3 etc .. so what you'll end up with is infinite regress. It could as it has also been theorised that it could also be cyclic in nature that's one of the reasons I stated it may have always existed, although in different forms. From big bang to big crunch and back again. It's also been theorised that this universe we are in may not be the only one. Just like the existence of God I doubt we will ever know for sure. 15 minutes ago, Baz1 said: An untreated first cause is the best explanation. Sorry you have lost me with that one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now