Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

30 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
May sound like an Upright Persian quote but this article has Quantum Physics in it and pictures as well, and I like looking at pictures.

"nothing" is inherently unstable

BBC - Earth - Why is there something rather than nothing?
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    Uh, oh.

    Mention of the term Kwontom Fizziks will attract some unsavoury posters.

    This won't end well.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9655531].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
    That's something I've asked myself many times. Whenever I've seen anyone try to answer this question from a scientific point of view, inevitably they spend all their time on how it may work rather than why it is.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9655695].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      That's something I've asked myself many times. Whenever I've seen anyone try to answer this question from a scientific point of view, inevitably they spend all their time on how it may work rather than why it is.
      Well, when you consider about the only two definitive answers we really have are "why not" and "because" - you have to have some material to use to write an article.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9655735].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Cali16
      That was a really interesting article. A bit hard to grasp some of the concepts (if only I had a brain like Einstein or Hawking!!), but fascinating nonetheless. Thanks for posting it!
      Signature
      If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9655738].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Gives new meaning to "I don't want to burst your bubble".
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9655917].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    Perhaps examining how thoughts arise can hint at how the universe began. Universe Grows Like A Brain | Social Networks

    (Who is Ther? Someone who was a nobody and became a somebody?)
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9655935].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      That's something I've asked myself many times. Whenever I've seen anyone try to answer this question from a scientific point of view, inevitably they spend all their time on how it may work rather than why it is.
      I didn't bother with the article, since l tend to read all this sort of thing in magazines.

      In a nutshell, the known universe has to have something where there once was nothing, (well until we realised something was there) in order to work!

      Get out of the 4 dimensional bubble the known universe is probably in, and we might see nothing!

      But l suspect that in order to see nothing the space we are concentrating our equipment would need to be artificially constructed, or a space of pure nothing is created.

      But maybe a real strong cup of tea might help?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9655942].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
        Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

        I didn't bother with the article, since l tend to read all this sort of thing in magazines.

        In a nutshell, the known universe has to have something where there once was nothing, (well until we realised something was there) in order to work!

        Get out of the 4 dimensional bubble the known universe is probably in, and we might see nothing!

        But l suspect that in order to see nothing the space we are concentrating our equipment would need to be artificially constructed, or a space of pure nothing is created.

        But maybe a real strong cup of tea might help?
        Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy. The improbability drive was powered by a nice, strong cup of tea.

        Think your on to something there.
        Signature

        Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9655966].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Let's approach this from a different angle. I believe this is a cause and effect universe. Everything points to each effect being the result of one or more causes.

    Now, suppose we had a super computer that could trace every effect back to it's cause or causes. That's not possible in reality, of course, but in the context of a thought experiment it is possible.

    Now, we program an effect into this cause and effect tracing computer and set to find the cause or causes of that effect. Further, we program it to keep tracing backward in time, tracing each cause and effect toward to it's origin. So if G is the result of E and F colliding, it would trace what caused E and F to collide, and so forth backward through the history of causes and effects.

    The computer goes to work, connecting each effect to it's cause(s). It goes back through an ocean of mundane things until it starts finding the big things: how the earth was formed, how the galaxy was formed, all the way back to the very first effect.

    What caused that first effect?

    Maybe I'm stuck in a habitual thinking pattern, but whenever I consider this thought experiment I keep ending up here: Whatever the first cause was would have to be eternal or it would be an effect of another cause.

    What could that be?
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9655996].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author peterj
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      ...

      Whatever the first cause was would have to be eternal or it would be an effect of another cause.

      What could that be?
      Nothing is eternal!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9656020].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      Let's approach this from a different angle. I believe this is a cause and effect universe. Everything points to each effect being the result of one or more causes.

      Now, suppose we had a super computer that could trace every effect back to it's cause or causes. That's not possible in reality, of course, but in the context of a thought experiment it is possible.

      Now, we program an effect into this cause and effect tracing computer and set to find the cause or causes of that effect. Further, we program it to keep tracing backward in time, tracing each cause and effect toward to it's origin. So if G is the result of E and F colliding, it would trace what caused E and F to collide, and so forth backward through the history of causes and effects.

      The computer goes to work, connecting each effect to it's cause(s). It goes back through an ocean of mundane things until it starts finding the big things: how the earch was formed. how the galaxy was formed, all the way back to the very first effect.

      What caused that first effect?

      Maybe I'm stuck in a habitual thinking pattern, but whenever I consider this thought experiment I keep ending up here: Whatever the first cause was would have to be eternal or it would be an effect of another cause.

      What could that be?
      Then we must conclude that their is no such thing as nothingness and your computer will keep tracing back forever.
      Signature

      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9656061].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
        Originally Posted by peterj View Post

        Nothing is eternal!
        And you came to that conclusion . . . how? Please provide your reasoning for your conclusion.


        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        Then we must conclude that their is no such thing as nothingness and your computer will keep tracing back forever.
        Why must we conclude that?
        Signature

        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9656129].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author peterj
          Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

          And you came to that conclusion . . . how? Please provide your reasoning for your conclusion.
          Well I was just giving you two answers in one statement. Either neither one or both of which may be true.

          I will try and return later once my brain stops working with my explanatory notes, as it can be a bit tricky putting nothing on paper.

          Although I have heard, if you're a writer, it's pretty easy.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9656806].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
          Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

          And you came to that conclusion . . . how? Please provide your reasoning for your conclusion.




          Why must we conclude that?
          Because your computer would be tracing back all the conditions and process that led up to the creation of the singularity that caused the big bang. You are wishing it only to start at the big bang?
          Signature

          Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9657207].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      Let's approach this from a different angle. I believe this is a cause and effect universe. Everything points to each effect being the result of one or more causes.

      Now, suppose we had a super computer that could trace every effect back to it's cause or causes. That's not possible in reality, of course, but in the context of a thought experiment it is possible.

      Now, we program an effect into this cause and effect tracing computer and set to find the cause or causes of that effect. Further, we program it to keep tracing backward in time, tracing each cause and effect toward to it's origin. So if G is the result of E and F colliding, it would trace what caused E and F to collide, and so forth backward through the history of causes and effects.

      The computer goes to work, connecting each effect to it's cause(s). It goes back through an ocean of mundane things until it starts finding the big things: how the earch was formed. how the galaxy was formed, all the way back to the very first effect.

      What caused that first effect?

      Maybe I'm stuck in a habitual thinking pattern, but whenever I consider this thought experiment I keep ending up here: Whatever the first cause was would have to be eternal or it would be an effect of another cause.

      What could that be?
      Dennis; Everything you said, until the end, was beautiful. But we have no idea what happened before the Big Bang. Only that it did happen, and how long ago.

      You assume that there is a first cause. And you further assume it's eternal.

      I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that these are assumptions, not based on reason.

      If it makes you feel better, I have had the same thought experiment, more times than I'd like to admit. I have no idea what the answer is. And I can't find any evidence, or extrapolation of logic, that can give us a clue.

      Maybe someday.

      And....that doesn't mean nobody knows.(Although, that's how I would bet), but I sure know that I don't know.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9657249].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        You assume that there is a first cause. And you further assume it's eternal.

        I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that these are assumptions, not based on reason.

        Dennis has the logic right. You haven't thought it through Claude. It is EMINENTLY based on reason.

        An infinite in the past reality has properties it has always had. It cannot have new properties since an infinity has already passed in which those properties would already exist infinitely in the past. Those properties ARE the first cause and is also by definition of being infinite past - eternal.

        The logic is inescapable.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9657848].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    This cool laminar flow experiment actually has huge implications in physics and the origins of the universe.

    Transport phenomena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9656095].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    It may be as simple as nothing is not possible without something, if the universe functions like the brain. And why wouldn't it? The physics governing the mind are the same as those governing the greater universe. It may sound like mumbo-jumbo, but check this out:
    Universe Grows Like A Brain | Social Networks
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9656185].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
    Dennis,

    The question, "Why does existence exist," suggests a purposeful will that existed prior to existence. That is, by definition, not possible in any logically explicable system.

    "Why" is also a question suited to psychologists and philosophers rather than physicists.


    Paul
    Signature
    .
    Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9656621].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Dennis,

      The question, "Why does existence exist," suggests a purposeful will that existed prior to existence. That is, by definition, not possible in any logically explicable system.

      "Why" is also a question suited to psychologists and philosophers rather than physicists.


      Paul
      "Who, made who,...who turned the screw"?


      True, no matter how far scientist go back to the big bang, they cannot get around how can everything exist, if nothing was there to kickstart it!

      By all logic and reasoning, we shouldn't exist!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9656794].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      "Why" is also a question suited to psychologists and philosophers rather than physicists.
      Paul,

      That's where I was wondering if people would go. As I said previously, all attempts I've seen by scientists to explain "why" always end up talking about "how" the universe may have unfolded, but not why - and "why" was the question asked.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9657190].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        Paul,

        That's where I was wondering if people would go. As I said previously, all attempts I've seen by scientists to explain "why" always end up talking about "how" the universe may have unfolded, but not why - and "why" was the question asked.
        Actually quite a few physicists do ask the question why. For eample they ask all the time why the universe is explicable by mathematics. Why is not always a question of purpose and it doesn't necessarily imply that at all. Its used in an explanatory sense very often looking for ultimate causes

        Why is the sky Blue? (not asking about purpose)
        Why do ice cubes result from water becoming cold? (also not implying purpose)

        That its not merely what religious people or philosophers do is pretty much contradicted buy the OP's link. Its not about philosophers or religion.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9657908].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Paul Myers View Post

      Dennis,

      The question, "Why does existence exist," suggests a purposeful will that existed prior to existence. That is, by definition, not possible in any logically explicable system.

      "Why" is also a question suited to psychologists and philosophers rather than physicists.


      Paul
      Dammit Paul! You made me delete my post, because it was almost exactly what you said.

      "Why" infers a purpose.....and a purpose implies intelligence. A matter of philosophy and religion.

      "How" is science. Although "Cause and effect" can sound like "Why".
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9657260].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9657263].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    Where did that "e" come from? I miss Ther.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9657392].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

      Where did that "e" come from? I miss Ther.
      I admit, I have been dropping some "e's" lately but I'm taking drug counselling
      Signature

      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9657400].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        I admit, I have been dropping some "e's" lately but I'm taking drug counselling...
        I took it to be a creative touch like a male counterpart to Cher. "Ladies and gentlemen, here is Ther. "

        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        ... I'm taking drug counselling
        That sounds rough. Do you mean that you're counselling drugs that are horrified by the humans who consume them?
        Signature

        Project HERE.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9657718].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    May sound like an Upright Persian quote but this article has Quantum Physics in it and pictures as well, and I like looking at pictures.

    "nothing" is inherently unstable

    BBC - Earth - Why is there something rather than nothing?
    I don't know if this has been covered yet but I heard that nothing comes before something.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9659393].message }}

Trending Topics