Believe in magic or a flawed logic?

[The Believer]

I believe nothing in this world and universe can come from absolute nothing. Everything in this universe must come from something. That's a very logical and scientific statement for any human being. That is how we perceive and experience things in our day to day life. But if we say that something in this universe can come from absolute nothing, then aren't we making an unscientific and illogical statement? How can something come out of absolute nothing? is it some kind of weird magic? so my point is if science doesn't believe in magic then it can not make any statements like "something can come from absolute nothing".

 

So going by the logic, "Everything in the universe must come from something", then the present universe that we have must have also come from something. Whether it was singularity or any other thing it doesn't matter. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the present universe came from "SOMETHING". If we believe in the logic that everything must come from something then we can ask from where that "SOMETHING" that gave birth to the universe come from? By logic that SOMETHING must have also come from something else. But this way, no matter how far we go back in the past, we can never reach the point where we can get the "ULTIMATE SOMETHING", because everything must come from something. So isn't the logic of "everything coming out of something" flawed?

 

So what can we do here? Do we have other options? Shall we then tweak our statement in a different way? Shall we say, "Everything in the universe must come from one "ULTIMATE SOMETHING" but that ULTIMATE SOMETHING can not come from anything" So this statement leaves two options open : Option one - Either that "ULTIMATE SOMETHING" came from nothing, option two - or that "ULTIMATE SOMETHING" is eternal and always existed without any birth.

 

So which option can we choose? Option one or option two? If we choose option one then we believe in magic which goes against science but if we choose option two then we face another challenge, i.e. how can something always exist without any birth?. Its impossible and flawed. Can any logical and scientific mind grasp this concept of something always existing without any birth? Atleast I cant grasp this concept.

So I am sitting and wondering, confused about what to choose, magic or flawed logic. What would you choose?

[Moontanman]

There are other schools of thought...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

The ekpyrotic universe, or ekpyrotic scenario, is a cosmological model of the origin and shape of the universe. The name comes from a Stoic term ekpyrosis (Ancient Greek ἐκπύρωσις ekpurōsis) meaning conflagration or in Stoic usage "conversion into fire".[1] The ekpyrotic model of the universe is an alternative to the standard cosmic inflation model for the very early universe; both models accommodate the standard Big Bang Lambda-CDM model of our universe.[2][3] The ekpyrotic model is a precursor to, and part of, some cyclic models.
The ekpyrotic model came out of work by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt and maintains that the universe did not start in a singularity, but came about from the collision of two branes. This collision avoids the primordial singularity and superluminal expansion of spacetime while preserving nearly scale-free density fluctuations and other features of the observed universe. The ekpyrotic model is cyclic, though collisions between branes are rare on the time scale of the expansion of the universe to a nearly featureless flat expanse. Observations that may distinguish between the ekpyrotic and inflationary models include polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation and frequency distribution of the gravitational wave spectrum.[4][5]

 

[The Believer]

There are other schools of thought...

 

The ekpyrotic model came out of work by Neil Turok and Paul Steinhardt and maintains that the universe did not start in a singularity, but came about from the collision of two branes.

 

Well thanks for the info but this ekpyrotic model does not solve the problem yet. According to this model our universe came from the collisions of two three-dimensional worlds, i.e branes but my question still persists, "where from that branes come from"? You still have to answer where that branes come from? See it does not matter where from our universe come from. We all know it came from something. So in this post i clearly said that the universe must have come from something. No matter what it was, sooner or latter i hope humanity will oneday find out which thoery is the best and proven explaination for the origin of the universe. But my point is as i made clear in my post that the universe must have come from "SOMETHING". It did not come out of absolute nothing magically. Atleast science doesn't believe in magic. So whatever was the cause of the origin of the universe, whether collision of branes or big bang. It doesn't matter. We all know there was something which was the cause of the universe. So my question is did that cause or SOMETHING come from nothing or always existed? Both the logic are flawed and impossible. Also the logic of everything coming out of something fails here.

[Moontanman]

Well thanks for the info but this ekpyrotic model does not solve the problem yet. According to this model our universe came from the collisions of two three-dimensional worlds, i.e branes but my question still persists, "where from that branes come from"? You still have to answer where that branes come from? See it does not matter where from our universe come from. We all know it came from something. So in this post i clearly said that the universe must have come from something. No matter what it was, sooner or latter i hope humanity will oneday find out which thoery is the best and proven explaination for the origin of the universe. But my point is as i made clear in my post that the universe must have come from "SOMETHING". It did not come out of absolute nothing magically. Atleast science doesn't believe in magic. So whatever was the cause of the origin of the universe, whether collision of branes or big bang. It doesn't matter. We all know there was something which was the cause of the universe. So my question is did that cause or SOMETHING come from nothing or always existed? Both the logic are flawed and impossible. Also the logic of everything coming out of something fails here.

 

 

Actually the idea is that the brane collisions are cyclic over vast amounts of time embedded in a multidimensional bulk space.

This bulk space may or may not contain many branes or even things we do not know of and have no way of knowing.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Moontanman

[michel123456]

Option two.

 

Conservation of energy is a concept easy to grasp. At the very end, conservation of energy is the result of something that "always exist".

On the other hand, the concepts of "birth" and "death" are linked to the concept of "life". in physics one does not encounter neither birth of death but transformation. The same happens in chemistry.

 

IMHO the problem here is the concept of time, it is the word "always" in the sentence that causes some trouble.

[Moontanman]

Another thing to understand is that just because we don't know now has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. At this time we can't calculate back further than the big bang, maybe we never will but I am betting that it's just our current knowledge can't deal with it..

[The Believer]

Another thing to understand is that just because we don't know now has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. At this time we can't calculate back further than the big bang, maybe we never will but I am betting that it's just our current knowledge can't deal with it..

Well you are clearly missing the point here. I know we can't go back further big bang but we can atleast come up with some logical statements and conclusions. Well big bang is just a current model of the universe. Tommorow we may come up with some other model. So whatever model we come up with, we can always have only two questions. Did the "ULTIMATE CAUSE " that gave birth to the universe come from absolute nothing or always existed. It is as simple as that. Either we say that the ULTIMATE CAUSE came from absolute nothing or it always existed. See you can not escape this problem by saying that "we do not know now" and the big bang is our current understanding. Forget about the scientific models of the universe. We all know including you that the universe had a CAUSE. So the bigger and greatest question here is whether that CAUSE came out of absolute nothing magically or was eternal. Choose either one. The choice is yours.

Option two.

 

Conservation of energy is a concept easy to grasp. At the very end, conservation of energy is the result of something that "always exist".

On the other hand, the concepts of "birth" and "death" are linked to the concept of "life". in physics one does not encounter neither birth of death but transformation. The same happens in chemistry.

 

 

Yes the law of conservation of energy is very easy to grasp. But what's difficult to grasp is where from that ENERGY come from? How can it always exist? So without any begining, without any birth, and without any cause, the energy simply always exist in the universe? I know we dont encounter the concept of birth and death in physics but the transformation of matter and energy to one form from another. But this concept does not explain from where and how this energy that keeps transforming exist in the universe. How can something "always existing" is an easy concept to grasp? The universe could be void and contain absolutely nothing but it consists of eternal energy. So why there has to be this energy? why not an empty universe? or an empty space containing nothing?

 

Edited October 19, 2013 by The Believer

[StringJunky]

Try this thought:

 

The problem with asking about “the beginning of the universe” is making a possibly erroneous assumption that time, as measured by clocks, even existed pre-big bang and that events then followed a conventional cause-and-effect sequence. If time is a function of space, as per Relativity, and space (or space-time) didn’t exist – everything was at maximum density and, I hazard, simultaneously causally connected - then it follows that time may not have either, so, the ‘rules’ governing the order of events in the evolution of the universe were possibly quite different. If there was no time then the notion of ‘a beginning’ doesn’t really make any sense in our big bang world after time-zero, which was the first moment of the inflationary epoch. Don't forget, you are a subject of the universe and thus cannot actually consider yourself, albeit philosophically, distinct from it and so must view it's evolution from within i.e. if time, as I suggested for example, didn't actually exist pre-BB then you must ignore it as a parameter in your musings about its evolution at that phase.

 

Cuttng to the chase, I am of the view that Michel mentions: it always existed and the problem of a beginning goes away. The Conservation of Energy dictates this and, thus far, is inviolable, so to my mind, this is a logical conclusion that is in accord with the universal rules we are aware of at this time.

Edited October 19, 2013 by StringJunky

[Moontanman]

Well you are clearly missing the point here. I know we can't go back further big bang but we can atleast come up with some logical statements and conclusions. Well big bang is just a current model of the universe. Tommorow we may come up with some other model. So whatever model we come up with, we can always have only two questions. Did the "ULTIMATE CAUSE " that gave birth to the universe come from absolute nothing or always existed. It is as simple as that. Either we say that the ULTIMATE CAUSE came from absolute nothing or it always existed. See you can not escape this problem by saying that "we do not know now" and the big bang is our current understanding. Forget about the scientific models of the universe. We all know including you that the universe had a CAUSE. So the bigger and greatest question here is whether that CAUSE came out of absolute nothing magically or was eternal. Choose either one. The choice is yours.

 

First of the term "absolutely nothing magically" is meaningless... "two choices" is what you claim, I see no reason to say that, you claim there is but I showed you at least one other and there are others as well but at this point in time the "current big bang is as close as we can get" is the only honest way to answer that question. Also saying something had to have a cause does not necessarily apply in the realm of the quantum.

 

Yes the law of conservation of energy is very easy to grasp. But what's difficult to grasp is where from that ENERGY come from? How can it always exist? So without any beginning, without any birth, and without any cause, the energy simply always exist in the universe? I know we dont encounter the concept of birth and death in physics but the transformation of matter and energy to one form from another. But this concept does not explain from where and how this energy that keeps transforming exist in the universe. How can something "always existing" is an easy concept to grasp? The universe could be void and contain absolutely nothing but it consists of eternal energy. So why there has to be this energy? Why not an empty universe? or an empty space containing nothing?

 

One theory at least suggests the energy came from another universe via a black in that universe causing ours to form from a white hole. Such a process could be viewed as cosmic evolution, the idea is that universes with constants that make more black holes cause more universes with their constants. There is a lot of speculation but right now all we can honestly say is there was an expansion of space time about 13.7 billion years ago...

[Ophiolite]

 

I believe nothing in this world and universe can come from absolute nothing. Everything in this universe must come from something. That's a very logical and scientific statement for any human being.

 

Are you seriously contending that statements by human beings come close to being reflections of absolute reality? Frankly, your beliefs are worthless, as are mine, and the universe and anything that preceeded it are wholly indifferent to them. Any other attitude is imbued with hubris and is decidely unscientific.

[The Believer]

 

If there was no time then the notion of ‘a beginning’ doesn’t really make any sense in our big bang world after time-zero, which was the first moment of the inflationary epoch. Don't forget, you are a subject of the universe and thus cannot actually consider yourself, albeit philosophically, distinct from it and so must view it's evolution from within i.e. if time, as I suggested for example, didn't actually exist pre-BB then you must ignore it as a parameter in your musings about its evolution at that phase.

 

if there was no time before big bang then do mean to say that the big bang happened without any cause? If i ignore time pre big bang then do imply that big bang happened without a cause? How can an event take place without a cause? Nothing happens without a reason or cause. Even if u say time started after big bang you still can't explain the cause of og big bang. Something just can not explode for no reason without any cause. The non existence of time before big bang does not explain the cause of big bang. Every event must have a cause.

Cuttng to the chase, I am of the view that Michel mentions: it always existed and the problem of a beginning goes away. The Conservation of Energy dictates this and, thus far, is inviolable, so to my mind, this is a logical conclusion that is in accord with the universal rules we are aware at this time.

 

 

Well if the law of conservation of energy dictates that it always existed the problem of a beginning indeed goes away without a doubt. But thats not the end of the problem. Why does it have to exist? Why there has to be this energy in the universe? Why not an empty space of absolute nothingness? How can the problem of a beginning go away by saying that it always existed. Now you have to explain logically why is there this eternal energy? WIthout any reason? no cause at all? There could be absolute nothingness but there is this energy. You can't just get away by simply saying that it just simply always existed. The question is why? Any logical person would ask that question.

[Moontanman]

if there was no time before big bang then do mean to say that the big bang happened without any cause? If i ignore time pre big bang then do imply that big bang happened without a cause? How can an event take place without a cause? Nothing happens without a reason or cause. Even if u say time started after big bang you still can't explain the cause of og big bang. Something just can not explode for no reason without any cause. The non existence of time before big bang does not explain the cause of big bang. Every event must have a cause.

 

Well if the law of conservation of energy dictates that it always existed the problem of a beginning indeed goes away without a doubt. But thats not the end of the problem. Why does it have to exist? Why there has to be this energy in the universe? Why not an empty space of absolute nothingness? How can the problem of a beginning go away by saying that it always existed. Now you have to explain logically why is there this eternal energy? WIthout any reason? no cause at all? There could be absolute nothingness but there is this energy. You can't just get away by simply saying that it just simply always existed. The question is why? Any logical person would ask that question.

 

 

Because it could... not being a smart ass, what can happen usually does...

[The Believer]

Also saying something had to have a cause does not necessarily apply in the realm of the quantum.

 

..

So in the realm of quantum do you mean to imply that something can come out of absolute nothing?

[Moontanman]

So in the realm of quantum do you mean to imply that something can come out of absolute nothing?

 

 

No, but cause and effect is somewhat less than applicable... and matter can spontaneously form from energy fields...

[The Believer]

 

 

Because it could... not being a smart ass, what can happen usually does...

Yes What can happen usually does. Absolutely agree with that. But I would like to add that it happens with a pre cause.

[Moontanman]

Yes What can happen usually does. Absolutely agree with that. But I would like to add that it happens with a pre cause.

 

 

maybe... maybe not.. at this point it's hard to say since we know little to nothing about conditions at T=0 or before or even if there could be a before. The 4D star collapsing into a black hole tearing a hole in space time resulting in another universe is interesting to me.

 

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-goodbye-big-black-hole-theory.html

Edited October 19, 2013 by Moontanman

[The Believer]

 

 

No, but cause and effect is somewhat less than applicable... and matter can spontaneously form from energy fields...

But that still doesn't explain why we have this energy or energy fields in the universe? As i mentioned earlier, the universe could be an empty space of absolute nothingness. But it is not. We have this energy and yet no one can explain why it exists. We can't just only accept that matter can spontaneously form from energy fields. We must also ask where from that energy field come from?

[Moontanman]

But that still doesn't explain why we have this energy or energy fields in the universe? As i mentioned earlier, the universe could be an empty space of absolute nothingness. But it is not. We have this energy and yet no one can explain why it exists. We can't just only accept that matter can spontaneously form from energy fields. We must also ask where from that energy field come from?

 

 

You are puzzling me, you seem to expect everything to be explained right now when in fact science is an on going process and i doubt you'll ever get anyone with an understanding of how the universe works to say something definite at this point about where the universe comes from, it could be turtles all the way as far as we can ever know...

[Gees]

Hi Believer;

 

Just some thoughts for your consideration.

 

I believe nothing in this world and universe can come from absolute nothing. Everything in this universe must come from something.

 

So isn't the logic of "everything coming out of something" flawed?

 

I suspect that the problem you are having comes from the term "nothing", as I doubt that "nothing" actually exists. Now the concept, "nothing", exists; as in there is nothing in the fridge to eat or there is nothing in my coffee cup. But when we use the word this way we are talking about a specific something that we are looking for--something that is missing. The fridge and coffee cup are not actually empty, and if nothing else, there is air in them.

 

But using the word "nothing" in relation to reality is a little different. You are essentially saying that no thing exists. Things can exist, but how could no thing exist? What holds the place that is presumably empty? The Ancients considered this problem and named the Aether as a chaos that the universe sat in and determined that this was the placeholder. Einstein also considered the Aether as real and necessary. So I doubt that "nothing" actually exists in reality--there is something there, we just don't know what it is.

 

So what can we do here? Do we have other options? Shall we then tweak our statement in a different way? Shall we say, "Everything in the universe must come from one "ULTIMATE SOMETHING" but that ULTIMATE SOMETHING can not come from anything" So this statement leaves two options open : Option one - Either that "ULTIMATE SOMETHING" came from nothing, option two - or that "ULTIMATE SOMETHING" is eternal and always existed without any birth.

 

 

I have to go with option two. If we think that there is something that existed before time and space, then we must consider that it is outside of time and space. If so, then it could well be eternal as far as we can understand it. Without matter, time seems to disappear, so cause and effect would not work that same way that it does for us. Tell me, which came first--the inside or the outside?

 

G

 

 

[The Believer]

I suspect that the problem you are having comes from the term "nothing", as I doubt that "nothing" actually exists.

 

By nothing, I mean absolute nothing, no air, no energy, no fundamental particles of matter etc. When you say that you doubt that nothing actualy exists, that doubt makes no sense. Because "nothing" is not "something". So the question or doubt of "nothing" existing or not existing does not arise. When our hand is empty we do not ask why is it empty.But when we are holding a pen or a book, we ask different questions like why are we holding it? where from we got it? etc. SO when I say "nothing" exists I do not mean "nothing" is "something" that exists. I simply mean there is no thing or in other words there is not anything. It is as simple as that. There should not be any doubt about "nothing" and we should not make it complex.

Things can exist, but how could no thing exist?

 

 

Well things can indeed exist no doubt about that. But your question "how could no thing exist"? does not make any sense. No thing means there is no thing. No matter, no energy, no light, no fundamental particles etc. So the question how could no thing exist does not make sense because "no thing" is not anything or something. It is as simple as that. If you find an empty box lying on the street you wouldn't ask why is the box empty. why shouldn't it be? By default the box has to be empty.Nothingness or emptiness is the default state.

 

Einstein also considered the Aether as real and necessary. So I doubt that "nothing" actually exists in reality--there is something there, we just don't know what it is.

 

 

Maybe Aether is real and necessary.To build a house we need building materials, to make tea we need tea leaves. The question is not why aether is necessary but the real question is why does aether exist? We need no explaination for nothingness or emptiness because that's the default. But when something exists or happens, we ask why? Once again, your doubt that ""nothing" actually exists" makes no sense because "nothing" is not anything or something that should exist.

 

If we think that there is something that existed before time and space, then we must consider that it is outside of time and space. If so, then it could well be eternal as far as we can understand it

 

 

When you say that it is outside of time and space then do you mean to say that space is some "thing" or some area with boundaries around it? Do you mean to say that this universe had a boundary and "something" that gave birth to this universe was outside of that boundary? Another question follows, even if that "something" is outside of time and space, still there has to be a reason why that "something" exists. I do not understand how can "something" always existing eternally be such an easy concept to grasp. So the big question still remains unanswered, whether eternal or not,

WHY THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING, WHY NOT ABSOLUTE NOTHING?

 

 

Edited October 20, 2013 by The Believer

[michel123456]

 

(...)

WHY THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING, WHY NOT ABSOLUTE NOTHING?

 

 

 

I understand fully your question(s) from the beginning of this thread. I would be very surprised if one of us could give a straight answer.

 

At the question "WHY THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING, WHY NOT ABSOLUTE NOTHING?" you will get answers like "_"why"_ is not scientific question, science answers to the _"how" question"

or even "_"why" is a philosophical question" and you'll get mad from such answers.

 

The only thing I can give here is my own speculation and it won't help much I am afraid.

 

My idea is that "nothing", call it "Nothing" with a big N, is impossible.

As if Nothing was a situation soooo unstable that it cannot be. Like a pencil on its tip.

[The Believer]

"_"why"_ is not scientific question, science answers to the _"how" question"

or even "_"why" is a philosophical question"

This is the first time in my life that i am knowing from someone that "why" is not a scientific question and is a philosophical question. I find this strange. Anyway if "why" is not a scientific question then do you mean to say it is wrong to ask a scientist, "why does an apple from a tree fall down towards earth and not goes up in the sky? I believe every great scientific discoveries were fueled by philosophical ideas and questions. Science can not ever get rid of philosophy as philosophy is nothing but the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. When newton saw the apple falling I believe probably the first question that came to his mind was "why does it fall down?". The question "how does it fall down" might have come latter to his mind. Anyway, for the sake of the argument, even if "why" is not a scientific question then I can easily rephrase my question as "HOW CAN THERE BE SOMETHING RATHER THAN ABSOLUTE NOTHING?"

My idea is that "nothing", call it "Nothing" with a big N, is impossible.As if Nothing was a situation soooo unstable that it cannot be. Like a pencil on its tip.

 

 

so now I am getting rid of "why" here and ask with a "how" again, "How is nothing impossible and how is it unstable?" When we find a glass in our kitchen is empty, we do not ask "why and how is it empty?". why shouldn't it be? But when we find the glass filled with water, we can ask "who filled it, why and how?" The empty glass need no explaination but the filled glass needs explaination.

[michel123456]

This is the first time in my life that i am knowing from someone that "why" is not a scientific question and is a philosophical question. I find this strange. Anyway if "why" is not a scientific question then do you mean to say it is wrong to ask a scientist, "why does an apple from a tree fall down towards earth and not goes up in the sky? I believe every great scientific discoveries were fueled by philosophical ideas and questions. Science can not ever get rid of philosophy as philosophy is nothing but the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. When newton saw the apple falling I believe probably the first question that came to his mind was "why does it fall down?". The question "how does it fall down" might have come latter to his mind.

I told you , you'll get mad.

 

Anyway,

 

Right. Better bypass, I agree.

 

for the sake of the argument, even if "why" is not a scientific question then I can easily rephrase my question as "HOW CAN THERE BE SOMETHING RATHER THAN ABSOLUTE NOTHING?"

 

I don't know. it is a wild speculation of mine.

 

 

so now I am getting rid of "why" here and ask with a "how" again, "How is nothing impossible and how is it unstable?" When we find a glass in our kitchen is empty, we do not ask "why and how is it empty?". why shouldn't it be? But when we find the glass filled with water, we can ask "who filled it, why and how?" The empty glass need no explaination but the filled glass needs explaination.

 

Well, the empty glass needs an explanation too. The glass is man-made, it is a by-product of a living organism, so IMHO it is not a good metaphor.

 

My speculation consists of saying that you have 2 things in the balance:

On the left you have the Universe with galaxies, stars, planets, atoms, quarks, radiation, living organisms, everything that we know is possible because we actually observe it. You could even add to the left all that is theorized could happen and that we cannot observe.

On the right of the balance you have...Nothing.

In this view, it should not be a surprise if the balance leans on the left.

Edited October 20, 2013 by michel123456

[Moontanman]

 

WHY THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING, WHY NOT ABSOLUTE NOTHING?

 

 

 

 

 

This is quite easy to answer and no again I am not trying to be a smart ass...

 

If there was nothing you would not be here to question why... No matter what the first cause is or even if there was one if it hadn't happened you would not be here to ask the question. To further my point it makes no difference how unlikely the universe, no matter how many 10 to quadrillions odds you think are stacked against the universe being the way it is if it wasn't you wouldn't be here to ask the questions...

 

If things were different... Things would be different...

 

That is the most basic answer that can be given, the unlikelihood of the universe has nothing to do with anything, we are already here...

Edited October 20, 2013 by Moontanman

[michel123456]

 

 

This is quite easy to answer and no again I am not trying to be a smart ass...

 

If there was nothing you would not be here to question why... No matter what the first cause is or even if there was one if it hadn't happened you would not be here to ask the question. To further my point it makes no difference how unlikely the universe, no matter how many 10 to quadrillions odds you think are stacked against the universe being the way it is if it wasn't you wouldn't be here to ask the questions...

 

If things were different... Things would be different...

 

That is the most basic answer that can be given, the unlikelihood of the universe has nothing to do with anything, we are already here...

That is the anthropic principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle