AgnosticWeb.com - Why is there anything? A new essay

Why is there anything? A new essay (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 02 Sep 2016 18:33:35 +0000

How do you get something from nothing or is something eternal? This essay poses questions, but I don't see answers:-http://nautil.us/issue/40/learning/the-bridge-from-nowhere-rp-The question of being is the darkest in all philosophy.” So concluded William James in thinking about that most basic of riddles: how did something come from nothing? The question infuriates, James realized, because it demands an explanation while denying the very possibility of explanation. “From nothing to being there is no logical bridge,” he wrote.-In science, explanations are built of cause and effect. But if nothing is truly nothing, it lacks the power to cause. It's not simply that we can't find the right explanation—it's that explanation itself fails in the face of nothing.-***-The solution to a paradox lies in the question, never in the answer. Somewhere there must be a glitch, a flawed assumption, a mistaken identity. In so succinct a question as “how did something come from nothing?” there aren't many places to hide. Perhaps that is why we return again and again to the same old ideas in new and improved guises, playing the trajectory of science like a fugue, or variations on a theme. With each pass, we try to lay another stepping stone in James's elusive bridge.-***-Following Aristotle's intuition, physicists today conceive of nothing as the ultimate state of symmetry—a relentless sameness that precludes the differentiation one would need to define any “thing.” Indeed, as physicists run the cosmic film in reverse, tracing deep history back in time, they see the disparate shards of reality reunite and coalesce into an ever-growing symmetry, a symmetry that signifies an origin—and a nothing. -***-Wrought by uncertainty, quantum fluctuations are effects without causes, the noise beneath the signal, a primeval static, random to the bone. The rules of quantum mechanics allow—actually, require—energy (and, by E=mc2, mass) to appear “out of nowhere,” from nothing. Creation ex nihilo—or so it seems. -Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ...says that certain pairs of physical features—position and momentum, energy and time—are bound together by a fundamental indeterminacy, so that the more accurately we specify one, the more ambiguous becomes the other. Together they form what's known as a conjugate pair, and together they preclude the existence of nothingness. Home in on a spatial position and momentum will fluctuate wildly to compensate; specify smaller, more precise quantities of time and energy will vacillate across a wider swath of improbable values. In the shortest eye blinks, across the smallest distances, whole universes can boil up into existence, then disappear. Zoom in closely enough on the world and our calm, structured reality gives way to chaos and randomness.-***-In spite of the way quantum fluctuations are typically described, what sits “out there” in the world is not some preexisting reality wiggling around. Experiment has consistently proven that what sits “out there” isn't sitting at all, but waiting. Unborn. Quantum fluctuations are not existential descriptions but conditional ones—they are not a reflection of what is, but of what could be, should an observer choose to make a particular measurement. It's as if the observer's ability to measure determines what exists. Ontology recapitulates epistemology. The uncertainty of nature is an uncertainty of observation. -***-While cosmologists do believe that the laws of quantum mechanics can spontaneously generate a universe, this story just passes the buck. For where did the laws come from? Remember, we wanted to explain how something came from nothing—not how something came from the preexisting laws of physics. Removing causality from the equation is not enough. The paradox stands. (my bold) ***- the eternal universe reappeared in a strange new form—specifically, in an equation that looked something like this: H(x)|?> = 0. The physicists John Archibald Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt wrote the equation—which is now known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation,-***-It's the right-hand side of the thing that's worth noting: zero. The total energy of the system is zilch. There is no time evolution. Nothing can happen. The problem, ultimately, is that Einstein's universe is a four-dimensional spacetime, a combination of space and time. Quantum mechanics, meanwhile, requires the wavefunction of a physical system to evolve in time. But how can spacetime evolve in time when it is time? -***- In and of itself, the Wheeler-DeWitt equation elegantly solves our problem. How did something come from nothing? It didn't. Of course, it's a perplexing solution given that, well, we're here. -***- Quantum theory requires this strange reversal of time's arrow. Wheeler emphasized this fact with his famous delayed choice experiment, which he first posed as a thought experiment but that was later demonstrated successfully in the lab. In the delayed choice, an observer's measurement in the present determines the behavior of a particle in the past—a past that can stretch back for millions, even 13.8 billions, of years. The causal chain turns in on itself, its end links back to its beginning: James's bridge is a loop. -Comment: What is always was. Something is eternal is the answer. I choose God.

Why is there anything? (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 04 May 2012 00:26:13 +0000

A Physicist weighs in: > > > > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/30/why-is-there-something-rath... > Sean Carroll is Stenger-lite. I read some of his stuff and he is slightly more sensible.-An other entry from Carroll with this paragraph: "In this case, unlike the previous one, time could end (or begin), because time was only a useful approximation to begin with, valid in a certain regime. -This kind of scenario is exactly what quantum cosmologists like James Hartle, Stephen Hawking, Alex Vilenkin, Andrei Linde and others have in mind when they are talking about the "creation of the universe from nothing." In this kind of picture, there is literally a moment in the history of the universe prior to which there weren't any other moments. There is a boundary of time (presumably at the Big Bang), prior to which there was ... nothing. No stuff, not even a quantum wave function; there was no prior thing, because there is no sensible notion of "prior." This is also interesting, and important, and worth writing a book about, and it's another one of the possibilities Lawrence discusses."-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/-Vilenkin just produced a paper noted here with this view. There was a beginning of tome and universe from nothing.

Why is there anything? (reply)

dhw — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:23:35 +0000

DAVID: Lawrence Krauss defends HIS philosophical ability:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-consolation-of-philos-KRAUSS: "It may be true that we can never fully resolved [sic] the infinite regression of 'why questions' that result whenever one assumes, a priori, that our universe must have some pre-ordained purpose. Or, to frame things in a more theological fashion: 'Why is our Universe necessary rather than contingent?'-One answer to this latter question can come from physics. If all possibilitiesâ€”all universes with all lawsâ€”can arise dynamically, and if anything that is not forbidden must arise, then this implies that both nothing and something must both exist, and we will of necessity find ourselves amidst something. A universe like ours is, in this context, guaranteed to arise dynamically, and we are here because we could not ask the question if our universe weren't here. It is in this sense that I argued that the seemingly profound question of why there is something rather than nothing might be actually no more profound than asking why some flowers are red or some are blue." -From my position on the agnostic fence, this is a non-argument. We don't need to believe in a pre-ordained purpose to have an infinite regression of questions ... namely, not why but how. We simply don't know that "all possibilities etc. can arise dynamically", and so there is no guarantee that our universe could arise dynamically, and while it is obvious to the point of absurdity that we couldn't ask the question if the universe wasn't here, that proves absolutely nothing about how we got here ... from the birth(s) of the universe(s) to the origin of life.-I agree, though, that the seemingly profound question of why there is something rather than nothing is not profound. It doesn't matter a jot whether you believe in a creator or in impersonal natural processes, it all boils down to some form of energy the source of which we shall never know. And I see absolutely no justification for a physicist assuming that his speculations have any more (or any less) validity than those of philosophers.-KRAUSS: What I tried to do in my writing on this subject is carefully attempt to define precisely what scientists operationally mean by nothing, and to differentiate between what we know, and what is merely plausible, and what we might be able to probe in the future, and what we cannot. The rest is, to me, just noise.-I have read the article twice, and would challenge anyone to find where the author "defines precisely" what we cannot probe. That is "precisely" the area that levels out the claims of physicists and philosophers.

Why is there anything? (reply)

David Turell — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:17:20 +0000

Michael Shermer chimes in:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=much-ado-about-nothing-and Lawrence Krauss defends HIS philosophical ability:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-consolation-of-philos

Why is there anything? (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 22:20:13 +0000

dhw: We shan't fall out over the infelicitous philosophizing affiliated to this fallacious flimflam. I wish you a Happy Yiddisher Easter! > > DAVID: And what is wrong with Passover on Good Friday night? The Last Supper! > > The Jews give you unleavened bread. The Christians give you chocolate bunnies and Easter eggs. That's what's wrong with Passover.-What's wrong with chicken soup and matzoh balls? Cures colds.

Why is there anything? (reply)

dhw — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:45:10 +0000

dhw: We shan't fall out over the infelicitous philosophizing affiliated to this fallacious flimflam. I wish you a Happy Yiddisher Easter!-DAVID: And what is wrong with Passover on Good Friday night? The Last Supper!-The Jews give you unleavened bread. The Christians give you chocolate bunnies and Easter eggs. That's what's wrong with Passover.

Why is there anything? (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:19:25 +0000

We shan't fall out over the infelicitous philosophizing affiliated to this fallacious flimflam. I wish you a Happy Yiddisher Easter!-And what is wrong with Passover on Good Friday night? The Last Supper!

Why is there anything? (reply)

dhw — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:59:21 +0000

DAVID: The universe itself is an inorganic entity, of which we are a part. It created life and sentience from itself, and we are the evidence of that. We are looking into the how, but may never determine the how. We need to ask the why question. I am willing to answer that question with comfort. You are not. I agree that we both speculate, but I am happy with my answer, even contented. Since we differ as personalities, I could not join your opinion, which for me is fallacious. I guess the best answer is the fallacy is in my view of your view.-My argument was that our own sentience does not provide evidence that the rest of the universe is sentient, and the fundamental distinction between the theist and the atheist is that the former thinks the universe is sentient, while the latter thinks it isn't. You dismissed this as a fallacy, because Paul Davies thinks the universe MAY be sentient, and you think it IS. If an argument is condemned as a fallacy, it is considered to be based on inaccurate facts or reasoning. I can't find the fallacy, though methinks your argument is a non sequitur! However, dear David, I am happy that you are happy, and I am happy too. We shan't fall out over the infelicitous philosophizing affiliated to this fallacious flimflam. I wish you a Happy Yiddisher Easter!

Why is there anything? (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:55:20 +0000

. > > Just do me one favor: > > How does this sentence make sense? > "Nothingness must surround God and the universe. " > > Your use of the word "nothing" here is what isn't making any sense. It at least *signals* that you're using the word in the wrong context. That's why I keep switching back to "nonexistence." -You need to study the meanings more. The philosophy of nithingness exists:-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/-Note the thesaurus fourth meaning:-http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonexistence-Nothingness and nonesistence are equated. You are looking at a nuance of meaning that is of no import.

Why is there anything? (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:37:32 +0000

Both arguments are pure speculation (the tentative language confirms this), and the difference is what constitutes the fundamental distinction between the theist and the atheist position. I repeat: where is the fallacy?-The universe itself is an inorganic entity, of which we are a part. It created life and sentience from itself, and we are the evidence of that. We are looking into the how, but may never determine the how. We need to ask the why question. I am willing to answer that question with comfort. You are not. I agree that we both speculate, but I am happy with my answer, even contented. Since we differ as personalities, I could not join your opinion, which for me is fallacious. I guess the best answer is the fallacy is in my view of your view.

Why is there anything? (reply)

dhw — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:45:36 +0000

Dhw: The fact that we ourselves are sentient does not endow the rest of the universe with sentience, whether one argues rationally or empirically. And sentience or consciousness is the fundamental difference between the theist and the atheist view of the universe.-DAVID: This argument is a fallacy. Paul Davies makes a great point of noting that our sentience is highly significant. Our sentience is a product of this universe and therefore the universe has become sentient in US and suggests a universal sentience may underlie it.-Where is the fallacy? Maybe the universe/eternal energy is sentient (I'm an agnostic, remember), but the fact that we are conscious of ourselves provides no evidence that the rest of the universe is also conscious of itself. Since the universe existed before us, and Paul Davies thinks it HAS BECOME sentient "in US" (whatever that means), that hardly makes for conscious energy that preceded and CREATED us! Furthermore, "SUGGESTS a universal sentience MAY underlie it" carries no more weight than Dawkins - who probably also realizes that we are sentient products of the universe! - insisting that there is no such thing as a universal sentience. Both arguments are pure speculation (the tentative language confirms this), and the difference is what constitutes the fundamental distinction between the theist and the atheist position. I repeat: where is the fallacy?

Why is there anything? (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:24:16 +0000

The fact that we ourselves are sentient does not endow the rest of the universe with sentience, whether one argues rationally or empirically. And sentience or consciousness is the fundamental difference between the theist and the atheist view of the universe.-This argument is a fallacy. Paul Davies makes a great point of noting that our sentience is highly significant. Our sentience is a product of this universe and therefore the universe has become sentient in US and suggests a universal sentience may underlie it.

Why is there anything? (reply)

dhw — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 12:24:46 +0000

TONY: And thus, in the form of eternal energy, that which was, that which is, and that which will be, eternally organized from time indefinite to time indefinite, can express with complete and utter assurance that "There is nothing new, under the sun." It knows all things and witnesses all things because it is all things, and in and of it everything exists; in and of it everything can be expressed; in and of it everything can be created. If that's not God with a big ole capital G I don't know what is; omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence....-We seem to have agreed that the history of the universe is one of eternal energy constantly transmuting itself into different forms of matter. Tony's post is a great piece of writing, but Matt has hit on the possible flaw: "I don't make any claims about sentience." Does the universe know anything, let alone all things? The fact that we ourselves are sentient does not endow the rest of the universe with sentience, whether one argues rationally or empirically. And sentience or consciousness is the fundamental difference between the theist and the atheist view of the universe.-Purely for clarification, then, and since at present there are no atheists taking part in this debate, let me counter Tony's great post with the atheist argument. For ever and ever eternal energy has randomly produced, is randomly producing and will go on randomly producing different forms of matter. The only forms we know of are some of those that make up the universe as it is now. In the course of eternity, with an infinite potential of material combinations at its disposal, it is well within the bounds of possibility that sooner or later the eternal energy will randomly produce a combination that gives rise to life and the mechanisms for evolution. We are the products of just such a random combination. And for all we know, there may have been countless others that have come and gone, or there may even be others in existence now. -The history of the universe ... of ever changing matter ... is precisely the same, whether you believe in God or not. The theist believes that the eternal energy is conscious, the atheist believes that it is not. The theist points to what seems to be intelligent organization and design, the atheist says that the processes occur naturally and without intelligent guidance. There is, I fear, no way round this dichotomy, no matter how colourfully each party paints its side of the agnostic fence.

Why is there anything? (reply)

xeno6696 — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:36:31 +0000

. > > > > For the first time in about 2.5 years I finally think I caught you and I have to drop it? Fine... > > > > For now. > > You haven't caught anything, just a basic disagreement. :>))-On panentheism vs. pantheism, to me that problem is permanently solved. They're logically equivalent. -Just do me one favor:-How does this sentence make sense? "Nothingness must surround God and the universe. "-Your use of the word "nothing" here is what isn't making any sense. It at least *signals* that you're using the word in the wrong context. That's why I keep switching back to "nonexistence." -When I joked last night, "I'll just wrap myself in nothing and go to bed." -Going back to the fridge example. "There's nothing in the fridge." -There's air in there. That's something. Your response would be, "well, then let the air out!"-We have a vaccum. But guess what... there's still *something* else in the fridge isn't there? -I await your answer to my two questions.

Why is there anything? (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 03:59:24 +0000

. > > For the first time in about 2.5 years I finally think I caught you and I have to drop it? Fine... > > For now.-You haven't caught anything, just a basic disagreement. :>))

Why is there anything? (reply)

xeno6696 — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 02:57:13 +0000

lol... > > Actually Krauss gets it wrong too. Nothing is nonexistence. All that talk of quantum field theory... no, sorry. That post, while supposing to discuss nothing, manages to discuss everything but. > > I agree with both these statements. The only place we disagree is about the word nothing as a concept. I agree that we disagree here. Let's drop it.-For the first time in about 2.5 years I finally think I caught you and I have to drop it? Fine... -For now.

Why is there anything? (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:24:04 +0000

A Physicist weighs in: > > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/30/why-is-there-something-rath... Carroll is Stenger-lite. I read some of his stuff and he is slightly more sensible.

Why is there anything? (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:09:25 +0000

The key difference as I understand it, is that we seem to have radically different views on the notion of "nonexistence." > > > > Read this philosopher. Nothing as a philosophic concept. > > He makes identical mistakes as you do:-He and I are wrong and you are right. Sorry. he is an atheist philosopher who makes good sense to me. > > "I can consistently imagine that nothing at all ever existed. >> We're going to continue to drive dhw batty, but theologically speaking, the universe == God. We already agreed to that! > > [EDIT] > > Actually Krauss gets it wrong too. Nothing is nonexistence. All that talk of quantum field theory... no, sorry. That post, while supposing to discuss nothing, manages to discuss everything but.-I agree with both these statements. The only place we disagree is about the word nothing as a concept. I agree that we disagree here. Let's drop it.

Why is there anything? (reply)

xeno6696 — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 00:05:55 +0000

And thus, in the form of eternal energy, that which was, that which is, and that which will be, eternally organized from time indefinite to time indefinite, can express with complete and utter assurance that "There is nothing new, under the sun." It knows all things and witnesses all things because it is all things, and in and of it everything exists; in and of it everything can be expressed; in and of it everything can be created. If that's not God with a big ole capital G I don't know what is; omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence....-Well, of course in my case I don't make any claims about sentience, BUT if the universe (God or no God) is everything, and I am sentient, then it certainly stands to reason that the universe is sentient. -Stands to reason. -Doesn't ring true empirically though, but how else to verify without "becoming" the universe? Thus my quandary repeats...-[Good post though, Tony.]-You basically hit right on the eastern notion of the Universe.

Why is there anything? (reply)

xeno6696 — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:59:14 +0000

A Physicist weighs in:-http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/08/30/why-is-there-something-rather-than-nothing/