By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - How something can come from nothing

GameOver22 on 24 November 2012
Jay520 said:
GameOver22 said:

We do not empirically verify laws. We empirically verify the implications of laws, and we use this to infer whether a law is viable. Talking of laws as if they exist is misleading, particularly in conjunction with your argument that something cannot come from nothing. This argument is talking about physical things. I think you would admit there is a fundamental difference between a tree and a law, hence, when we talk of a law existing, we mean something fundamentally different from when we say a phsyical object exists. Your argument is treating both the existence of laws and the existence of things as if they are the same, which they are not. That is my criticism.

In other words, the fact that an object cannot exist in nothingness does not mean that a law cannot exist in nothingness.


True, laws are not physical entities. But would you agree that laws describe physical entities? If so, then you shouldn't you also agree that if there are no physical entities (nothing), then there are also no laws.

No. In that case, we couldn't observe the implication of the laws. This does not mean the laws are not there.

Our observations depend on matter existing, so our justification for laws depends on their being some matter for the laws to affect. If there is not matter, we could never observe a law's effects, however, not being able to observe the implications of a law does not mean its not there.....there just isn't anything for it to affect.

Another way to put it, laws are not dependent on the physical existence of the things they explain.



Around the Network
Jay520 on 24 November 2012
Soleron said:

While I agree we can't know anything about before the universe right now directly, that doesn't mean that all ideas are equally valid. We can still use logic and our local experience of the world to say what might happen. And nowhere in the world do we see the kind of true nothingness that people think of. Why would it be the default assumption when we're talking about before the universe?

If you're willing to throw out the "something can't come from nothing" idea, why not the "all things must have a beginning" idea? The universe could have existed forever in some form forever (oscillation Big Bangs and Crunches, or an interconnected multiverse spawning baby universes).

Our default ideas are limited by the space we think we inhabit: flat, three-dimensional, deterministic, and on a large scale compared to the atom. They're not a good guide to how the universe actually operates on very large or very small scales.



True, we have never seen nothingness, but how would it be possible to see nothingness? I don't necessarily agree that nothingness is the default assumption, but I do believe that this is the idea that most people think of when thinking of before the universe. I don't really care for if there was ever truly nothing (I accept that this may not be likely). I was moreso interested in whether nothingness could result in something.

As for the eternal universe idea, I don't think it makes sense. If the universe was eternal, we would never reach a point in time. If the universe's past stretches back for an eternity, we would never be able to traverse eternity, and we wouldn't be able to go forward...or something like that. I'm sure you're aware of the problems with an eternal existence.

IIIIITHE1IIIII on 24 November 2012
Roma said:
Jay520 said:
Roma said:
so because the rule itself did not exist it allowed itself to create itself in order to create the rule that nothing can come out of nothing?

It makes perfect Sense!!

well done I'm an athiest now!


no need for your sarcasm. I'm not trying to convert anyone or push my beliefs on anyone. I didn't even say I believe this. I just said it seemed plausible and asked what others thought. If you disagree, then you can express yourself maturely.

sorry I could not help but post that as it sounded funny in my head.

what I think now about Atheists is that they will believe anything even if it is illogical or impossible as long as it is not a creator.


And you (along with many other believers) believe in a creator, which is illogical and impossible. I would rather keep my mind open for suggestions than say, "I KNOW the answer! It must have been a creator, there is NO other possibility!" when truth is there are no scientific proof or even theories supporting that answer.

 

This comic comes to mind:

 

Something to think about. Being absolutely sure about your beliefs is never a good thing.



GameOver22 on 24 November 2012
Soleron said:
GameOver22 said:
Soleron said:
...

I've read both....and more : )

Personally, I think its complicated. I don't think either Popper or Kuhn got it entirely right, but they both hit on some important points, especially in regards to the role of falsification in science. I never read him in depth, but I actually like Lakatos more than Kuhn. I think he was one of Kuhn's students.

Yeah. I'm studying at my university's Department of History and Philosophy of Science which is exactly about this.

I really dislike Lakatos's attempts to throw a bunch of words at the problem. I don't think science can be described with a written definition or method. Scientists themselves tend not to read about it, so sometimes I feel all their work is wasted. Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend are the four main people we study to start with, and of course all of their arguments have flaws or counter-examples.

True. That's pretty much philosophy in general. There are no sure answers.

As for the first part of your post, that's pretty much my experience too. It seems that the scientific method/definitions of science are really just general rules that always have exceptions. Its always interesting to see how philosopher's look at this stuff, but its practical import, once you start research always seems to be minimal. There are some common-sense rules that are important to follow, but the details are malleable.



Jay520 on 24 November 2012
Soleron said:
Jay520 said:
brendude13 said:
...

That's not entirely true.

Also, I'm definitely dropping Physics next year.


I do not understand. Do you have different water in the UK?

At atmospheric pressure that is true, but not otherwise.



Interesting...well surely my water example can be replaced with a better one.

Around the Network
Jay520 on 24 November 2012
GameOver22 said:

No. In that case, we couldn't observe the implication of the laws. This does not mean the laws are not there.

Our observations depend on matter existing, so our justification for laws depends on their being some matter for the laws to affect. If there is not matter, we could never observe a law's effects, however, not being able to observe the implications of a law does not mean its not there.....there just isn't anything for it to affect.

Another way to put it, laws are not dependent on the physical existence of the things they explain.



This doesn't seem to make sense to me, but perhaps I should do my own reading on it. I was sure that people would agree that in nothingness, there would be no laws.

Also, what do you mean "this doesn't mean the laws are not there." Your saying even if there are no objects, laws can still be "there." Isnt saying a law is "there" the same as saying a law "exists"? Which goes against your earlier post saying we don't speak of laws in terms of existence.

GameOver22 on 24 November 2012
Jay520 said:
GameOver22 said:

No. In that case, we couldn't observe the implication of the laws. This does not mean the laws are not there.

Our observations depend on matter existing, so our justification for laws depends on their being some matter for the laws to affect. If there is not matter, we could never observe a law's effects, however, not being able to observe the implications of a law does not mean its not there.....there just isn't anything for it to affect.

Another way to put it, laws are not dependent on the physical existence of the things they explain.


This doesn't seem to make sense to me, but perhaps I should do my own reading on it. I was sure that people would agree that in nothingness, there would be no laws.

Also, what do you mean "this doesn't mean the laws are not there." Your saying even if there are no objects, laws can still be "there." Isnt saying a law is "there" the same as saying a law "exists"? Which goes against your earlier post saying we don't speak of laws in terms of existence.

Yes. This was my whole point a couple of posts back about there being a difference between a law existing and a physical object existing. Existence means something different depending on the context. When we say a law exist, we do not mean it has phsyical existence. When we say a tree exists, we do mean it has phsyical existence.

To clarify, when someone says nothingness, it is obvious, by the definition, that there are no phsyical objects. On the other hand, nothingness does not preclude the existence of a law because, even if we could observe nothingness, it would be impossible to observe a law itself. This is true because we confirm laws through their empirical implications....meaning their effects on the physical world. With no objects, we could not find any empirical phenomena to confirm or disconfirm the theory.



Roma on 24 November 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Roma said:
Jay520 said:
Roma said:
so because the rule itself did not exist it allowed itself to create itself in order to create the rule that nothing can come out of nothing?

It makes perfect Sense!!

well done I'm an athiest now!


no need for your sarcasm. I'm not trying to convert anyone or push my beliefs on anyone. I didn't even say I believe this. I just said it seemed plausible and asked what others thought. If you disagree, then you can express yourself maturely.

sorry I could not help but post that as it sounded funny in my head.

what I think now about Atheists is that they will believe anything even if it is illogical or impossible as long as it is not a creator.


And you (along with many other believers) believe in a creator, which is illogical and impossible. I would rather keep my mind open for suggestions than say, "I KNOW the answer! It must have been a creator, there is NO other possibility!" when truth is there are no scientific proof or even theories supporting that answer.

 

This comic comes to mind:

 

Something to think about. Being absolutely sure about your beliefs is never a good thing.

I have already explained my view on that matter and why it is more logical that there is a creator rather than the universe deciding to create itself from nothing as in no dust no nothing at all.





    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

Soleron on 24 November 2012
Roma said:
...

I have already explained my view on that matter and why it is more logical that there is a creator rather than the universe deciding to create itself from nothing as in no dust no nothing at all.


What created the creator?



Jay520 on 24 November 2012
Roma said:

I have already explained my view on that matter and why it is more logical that there is a creator rather than the universe deciding to create itself from nothing as in no dust no nothing at all.





But you also make the assumption that the creator came from nothing. The difference between your view and a non-creator view is the fact that one of the view assumes unnecessary extra beings. The other does not assume any extra beings.