Something Instead of Nothing

[MagsJ]

On the below premises.. can we get/create an object/the Universe out of nothing? all the probable scientific laws say we cannot, and do the Universal laws say likewise? what of them..? and do we even know what they wholly and truthfully are..? are they even verifiable under our current scientific knowledge-base?

As stated above Science had NEVER proven conclusively we cannot produce things out of nothing.
Science merely ASSUME 'there is something from something' or 'there is something instead of nothing'.

The quest to search for something ultimate rather than nothing is a flawed hypothesis.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/201411 ... ist-at-all - an interesting read, but not really a damning hypothesis for agreement.

[iambiguous]

"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

Philosopher David Albert, a specialist in quantum theory, offers a more balanced assessment of Lawrence Krauss's book A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing in The New York Times Book Review. And by balanced assessment, I mean merciless smack down. Albert asks, "Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from?" Modern quantum field theories, Albert points out, "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story."

Isn't this the basic problem here in a nutshell? No matter who or what you start with in attempts to encompass somethingness -- God, space/time, quantum mechanics -- you're stuck with explaining where that came from. But if you sweep a beginning under the rug, you're left with explaining how something can just always exist. In the other words, the only thing in the entire universe that did not come into existence out of either nothing at all or out of something that we cannot actually put into words.

Of course that means that all attempts to "smack down" the speculations of others are no less on shaky ground.

Period? Case closed? End of story? Okay, but of theirs or yours?

[Karpel Tunnel]

"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

Philosopher David Albert, a specialist in quantum theory, offers a more balanced assessment of Lawrence Krauss's book A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing in The New York Times Book Review. And by balanced assessment, I mean merciless smack down. Albert asks, "Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from?" Modern quantum field theories, Albert points out, "have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story."

Isn't this the basic problem here in a nutshell? No matter who or what you start with in attempts to encompass somethingness -- God, space/time, quantum mechanics -- you're stuck with explaining where that came from. But if you sweep a beginning under the rug, you're left with explaining how something can just always exist. In the other words, the only thing in the entire universe that did not come into existence out of either nothing at all or out of something that we cannot actually put into words.

Of course that means that all attempts to "smack down" the speculations of others are no less on shaky ground.

Period? Case closed? End of story? Okay, but of theirs or yours?

Horgan is unnecessarily pissy, it seems to me, but I felt like Albert kept thinking he had explained precisely what Horgan is saying he did not. There were possibilities in the nothing that lead necessarily to something. Well, possibilities are not nothing. He kept trying to get more and more abstract and vague, but there was always some kind of rules, laws, tendencies, possibilities present. I wouldn't say the issue cannot be solved, but in a popular science book - that is, intended for people who are not physicists, he failed with a number of fairly intelligent readers I know. And I see no consensus in the astrophysics community either that we solved that one.

There's a human urge to shelve files as quickly as possible under solved. Police are notoriously in a hurry with such things as many a black man can tell you.

[iambiguous]

Horgan is unnecessarily pissy, it seems to me, but I felt like Albert kept thinking he had explained precisely what Horgan is saying he did not. There were possibilities in the nothing that lead necessarily to something. Well, possibilities are not nothing. He kept trying to get more and more abstract and vague, but there was always some kind of rules, laws, tendencies, possibilities present.

Well, whenever we are less and less able to demonstrate empirically, physically, phenomenally etc., what we think is true about "somethingness" in our head, the more our only recourse is a world of words. A world of intellectual assumptions about the relationship between the something that is existence and the something that is "I" speculating about it.

And living in it.

Abstraction is less the concern here for some than with those who actually imagine that their own abstractions need be as far as we go.

And my own emphasis here is always on the existential relationship between "I" and "all there is".

And, as well, on the manner in which claiming to have "solve" something like this is rooted less in science and philosophy and more in human psychology. Being able to anchor "I" to one or another TOE.

But what that is rooted to is still...what exactly?

[iambiguous]

"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

If you want a more satisfying exploration of The Question, check out Why Does the World Exist? by the science and philosophy writer Jim Holt, to be published this summer by W.W. Norton. Holt is neither foolish nor arrogant enough to claim that he or anyone else has answered The Question. Rather, he ponders and talks about The Question not only with physicists, notably Linde, Steven Weinberg and David Deutsch, but also with philosophers, theologians and other non-scientists. And why not? When it comes to The Question, everyone and no one is an expert, because The Question is different in kind than any other question posed by science. Ludwig Wittgenstein was trying to make this point when he wrote, in typically cryptic fashion, "Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is."

Clearly, when it comes to The Question, who really knows where science ends and philosophy begins? We don't even know if, as well, there is a demarcation here between them and theology.

What is is?

But at least the scientists go about the business of connecting their words to the world. They may propose some really wild speculations about mind-boggling relationships that most of us have no sophisticated understanding of, but they do go out into space and into our brains in order to attach these conjectures to actual "things".

They then collect and accumulate data about interactions able to be demonstrated to others. Interactions in which experiments can be conducted, predictions can be made, results can replicated.

Whereas here arguments alone are often construed to be demonstration enough. In other words, words defining and defending only other words.

Arguments that aim more to satisfy some that the explanation itself is the whole point of the pursuit. To think that you know is the equivalent of mission accomplished.

Then and only then can you anchor "I" to a far more reassuring sense of reality.

Basically, this part...

In my favorite section of Holt's book, he chats with novelist John Updike, whose work explored our yearning for spiritual as well as sexual fulfillment. Updike prided himself on keeping abreast of the latest scientific ideas, and one of his novels, Roger's Version (Random House, 1986), features characters who debate whether science can displace religion as a source of ultimate answers. Updike told Holt that he doubted whether science would ever produce a satisfying answer to The Question. Science, Updike said, "aspires, like theology used to, to explain absolutely everything. But how can you cross this enormous gulf between nothing and something?"

That elusive "spiritual" foundation. And this revolves more around the purpose of somethingness, the meaning of it.

After all, only in approaching it from this angle can "I" be anchored teleologically to final truths on this side of the grave and to immortality on the other side of it.

That "something" is said to exist barely scratches the surface here. Instead, "I" needs to be connected to a "happy ending" as well.

[iambiguous]

"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

Thirty years ago, I had a, shall we say, experience that left me pondering a slightly different theological explanation of creation: If there is a God, He created this heart-breaking world because He was suffering from a cosmic identity crisis, triggered by His own confrontation with The Question. In other words, God is as mystified as we are by existence.

If nothing else, this reminds us how, when push comes to shove, the meaning of God and the meaning of Existence are both intertwined in what has got to be nothing short of a mind-boggling explanation.

Some [like Rabbi Harold Kushner] have imagined God as all knowing but not all powerful. In order to explain why "bad things happen to good people". So, sure, why not a God that is not omniscient. Why not a Creator unable to grasp why He himself exists?

How much more unimaginable is that than everything there is coming into existence out of nothing at all. Or everything there is having no beginning [and presumably no end] at all.

I think anyone with even an ounce of intelligence recognizes how ineffable "being" seems to be. It is just not something you can wrap your head around and really feel satisfied with your own explanation. Unless, in my view, you are an idiot.

Or, here, a Kid.

[iambiguous]

"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

Science has told us so much about our world! We now understand, more or less, what reality is made of and what forces push and pull the stuff of existence to and fro. Scientists have also constructed a plausible, empirically founded narrative of the history of the cosmos and of life on Earth. But when scientists insist that they have solved, or will soon solve, all mysteries, including the biggest mystery of all, they do a disservice to science; they become the mirror images of the religious fundamentalists they despise. Comte was wrong about how science is limited, but not that it is limited.

What is it about the human brain that compels us to propose things like this?

He avers that science will never explain why there is something instead of nothing. Or why this particular something and not another.

In much the same way that others declare there either is or is not a God. That there either is or is not an objective morality. That we either are or are not wholly determined.

Still, the scientific method for exploring these things is not at all the same thing as a leap of faith to God.

My own speculation here is that while we do not have answers to these questions here and now, some of us are considerably closer to oblivion than others. We sense that while, sure, "down the road", science may in fact explain things that are still profound mysteries to us now. But "I" won't be around to marvel at them.

As with so much embedded in the "human condition", it comes down to the actual existential relationship between any particular individual and "all there is".

Both on this side of the grave and the other side of it.

[Karpel Tunnel]

"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

Science has told us so much about our world! We now understand, more or less, what reality is made of and what forces push and pull the stuff of existence to and fro. Scientists have also constructed a plausible, empirically founded narrative of the history of the cosmos and of life on Earth. But when scientists insist that they have solved, or will soon solve, all mysteries, including the biggest mystery of all, they do a disservice to science; they become the mirror images of the religious fundamentalists they despise. Comte was wrong about how science is limited, but not that it is limited.

What is it about the human brain that compels us to propose things like this?

He avers that science will never explain why there is something instead of nothing. Or why this particular something and not another.

If he said that science will never explain why there is something...etc. He didn't do it in the citation. He says it will not happen soon.

Still, the scientific method for exploring these things is not at all the same thing as a leap of faith to God.

I don't think he said that either. He starts the paragraph with positive statements about Science and all that it has taught us. He does no such thing for religion or faith in God. Then he draws a distinction between what Science has done that he is complimenting and people saying science will soon or have already solved all mysteries. And that is a mirror image of religious fundamentalism because it is not based on empirical research - this claim - but on intuition or guesswork. It is mere speculation.

My own speculation here is that while we do not have answers to these questions here and now, some of us are considerably closer to oblivion than others. We sense that while, sure, "down the road", science may in fact explain things that are still profound mysteries to us now. But "I" won't be around to marvel at them.

That seems compatible with what he wrote. But perhaps you had moved on to mulling in general.

There is a rush to claim knowledge, to set things right on the shelf, even amongst those who apparantaly support the scientific method as the only route to knowledge, while making strong claims based on other methods, ones they tend to look down on in other groups.

I think that's worth pointing out. He would have been more consistent if he himself had not weighed in on his speculation that it will not be soon, but his general point is one worth making.

[surreptitious75]

There should never be a rush to claim knowledge. Instead one should learn to be patient and
accept that what they re seeking will come in its own time rather than when they want it to

[Karpel Tunnel]

There should never be a rush to claim knowledge. Instead one should learn to be patient and
accept that what they re seeking will come in its own time rather than when they want it to

I agree. I think there is a kind of pre-emptive habit in humans, and even in the scientific community. The urge to stave off any particular other authority. We got this. It's pretty much wrapped up. We can close the door on epistemology or whatever.
IOW it is in the context where other groups have claimed or might claim authority, and they want to close that door.

[surreptitious75]

I think it is good to have gaps in knowledge because of the intellectual curiosity it provokes
Once something is known then that curiosity no longer exists and has to be found elsewhere

[Karpel Tunnel]

I think it is good to have gaps in knowledge because of the intellectual curiosity it provokes
Once something is known then that curiosity no longer exists and has to be found elsewhere

I suppose, but it's a bit like saying it's good to not be omnipotent. I am not worried about not being omnipotent either, any time soon. I am pretty good at worrying, but the problems of being omnicient and omnipotent haven't made it to my top ten list of worries yet.

[iambiguous]

"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

Science has told us so much about our world! We now understand, more or less, what reality is made of and what forces push and pull the stuff of existence to and fro. Scientists have also constructed a plausible, empirically founded narrative of the history of the cosmos and of life on Earth. But when scientists insist that they have solved, or will soon solve, all mysteries, including the biggest mystery of all, they do a disservice to science; they become the mirror images of the religious fundamentalists they despise. Comte was wrong about how science is limited, but not that it is limited.

What is it about the human brain that compels us to propose things like this?

He avers that science will never explain why there is something instead of nothing. Or why this particular something and not another.

If he said that science will never explain why there is something...etc. He didn't do it in the citation. He says it will not happen soon.

The title of the article is, "Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"

Who are you talking about?

Still, the scientific method for exploring these things is not at all the same thing as a leap of faith to God.

I don't think he said that either.

I'm saying that. Science and religion are far, far removed with respect to the "methodology" they employ in grappling with questions like this. It's just a question of exploring further the gap between those who have faith in God the Creator and those who insist that God did in fact create the universe in, what, six days?

Faith implies doubt but I doubt the truly fervent believers feel much of that.

My own speculation here is that while we do not have answers to these questions here and now, some of us are considerably closer to oblivion than others. We sense that while, sure, "down the road", science may in fact explain things that are still profound mysteries to us now. But "I" won't be around to marvel at them.

That seems compatible with what he wrote. But perhaps you had moved on to mulling in general.

Mulling what in general?

There is a rush to claim knowledge, to set things right on the shelf, even amongst those who apparantaly support the scientific method as the only route to knowledge, while making strong claims based on other methods, ones they tend to look down on in other groups.

I agree. Even the scientific method still flounders when scientists go far enough out on the metaphysical limb. And examining why there is something instead of nothing is about as far out as one can go.

Here I tend to come back to two things:

* "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

* "It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe."

[iambiguous]

There should never be a rush to claim knowledge. Instead one should learn to be patient and
accept that what they re seeking will come in its own time rather than when they want it to

Knowledge about what though?

And to suppose that knowledge will come in its own time seems to suggest that the knowledge we seek is out there. We just need be patient.

And, sure, that may well be the case regarding something rather than nothing. Or regarding those things that either are or are not in fact true.

But some then argue that in regard to conflicting goods that knowledge is also out there biding its time before finally showing up.

Well, suppose that it's not? Suppose knowledge [what we can know] here is never more than a subjective point of view?

[Karpel Tunnel]

"Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"
By John Horgan in Scientific American

Science has told us so much about our world! We now understand, more or less, what reality is made of and what forces push and pull the stuff of existence to and fro. Scientists have also constructed a plausible, empirically founded narrative of the history of the cosmos and of life on Earth. But when scientists insist that they have solved, or will soon solve, all mysteries, including the biggest mystery of all, they do a disservice to science; they become the mirror images of the religious fundamentalists they despise. Comte was wrong about how science is limited, but not that it is limited.

What is it about the human brain that compels us to propose things like this?

He avers that science will never explain why there is something instead of nothing. Or why this particular something and not another.

If he said that science will never explain why there is something...etc. He didn't do it in the citation. He says it will not happen soon.[/quote]

The title of the article is, "Science Will Never Explain Why There's Something Rather Than Nothing"

Who are you talking about?

Ah, sorry, missed the title and read the text, which doesn't really fit the title, since he mentions soon and now.

Still, the scientific method for exploring these things is not at all the same thing as a leap of faith to God.

I don't think he said that either.

I'm saying that.

Yes, my sentence was poorly worded, but i though still clear.
He didn't say the scientific method was the same as a leap of faith. He said that saying we have it all figured out or will soon is like that.

Science and religion are far, far removed with respect to the "methodology" they employ in grappling with questions like this.

Right, sure. But saying that we have it all nearly figured out or will soon, is not a conclusion based on scientific methodology.

Faith implies doubt but I doubt the truly fervent believers feel much of that.

Fervent believers regardless of paradigm or methodology tend not to.

There is a rush to claim knowledge, to set things right on the shelf, even amongst those who apparantaly support the scientific method as the only route to knowledge, while making strong claims based on other methods, ones they tend to look down on in other groups.

I agree. Even the scientific method still flounders when scientists go far enough out on the metaphysical limb. And examining why there is something instead of nothing is about as far out as one can go.

Well, there you go. That's where it can become reasonable to call some things scientists or science advocates say as a mirror image of religous claims.

Here I tend to come back to two things:

* "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."

* "It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe."

[/quote]Sure, that could be part of saying that those who say we know nearly everything are speculating wildly and mirror faith-based people.

[Santiago]

To ask the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question, because, conceivably, there could be nothing. If the universe, really, was meaningless (which it isn't), then there would, actually, be nothing existing.

Activity implies intentionality, which entails meaning. Humans strive for various things, such as social power; animals strive to survive and reproduce; plants strive to grow and pass on their seed; even inorganic matter has a telos: gravitation --- accumulation of more energy, amassing itself.

Striving for something is intending, or meaning something. Everything means to do one thing or another. The universe is teleological.

There is something rather nothing, because the universe has meaning.

[Ecmandu]

To ask the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question, because, conceivably, there could be nothing. If the universe, really, was meaningless (which it isn't), then there would, actually, be nothing existing.

Activity implies intentionality, which entails meaning. Humans strive for various things, such as social power; animals strive to survive and reproduce; plants strive to grow and pass on their seed; even inorganic matter has a telos: gravitation --- accumulation of more energy, amassing itself.

Striving for something is intending, or meaning something. Everything means to do one thing or another. The universe is teleological.

There is something rather nothing, because the universe has meaning.

Arggh... I have to repeat myself again because someone didn't read the thread.

Nothing is defined as: isn't

Isn't by definition isn't: it's not there

The universe is the lack of isn't.

That's why existence exists.

[Ecmandu]

To additionally explain this:

From a Buddhist perspective, there is something called "dependent arising".

This basically means that something else has to exist in order for something to exist.

What both of the phrases mean in terms of time is that in every moment, existence is just beginning to exist through the lack of isn't, and dependent arising.

That's why the present is so important in Buddhism.

The present moment is all of creation.

[Karpel Tunnel]

To ask the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question, because, conceivably, there could be nothing. If the universe, really, was meaningless (which it isn't), then there would, actually, be nothing existing.

Activity implies intentionality, which entails meaning. Humans strive for various things, such as social power; animals strive to survive and reproduce; plants strive to grow and pass on their seed; even inorganic matter has a telos: gravitation --- accumulation of more energy, amassing itself.

Striving for something is intending, or meaning something. Everything means to do one thing or another. The universe is teleological.

There is something rather nothing, because the universe has meaning.

Arggh... I have to repeat myself again because someone didn't read the thread.

Nothing is defined as: isn't

Isn't by definition isn't: it's not there

The universe is the lack of isn't.

That's why existence exists.

There is an inherent parsimony in scientific models. It's an attitude which hides within it (or doesn't) the idea that if we don't have a really good model for why something exists and we all can't find it in the lab, then it doesn't exist. Another take on this is Occam's Razor, as science groupies use it: this idea that the simpler model or context is the more likely one. (that's a basterdization of the OR, but it does get used that way). So we have this tendency towards little or nothing or less in expectation. Taken to its extreme it means that something, the existence of whatever that something is, including the universe, bears the onus. Like something it weirder than nothing. Parsimony as ontology.

In that context the 'why is there something rather than nothing' question is a reaction to our, often, being immersed in this parsimonius ontology of the scientismists. And it should bother them. And it does bother them.

[Prismatic567]

To additionally explain this:

From a Buddhist perspective, there is something called "dependent arising".

This basically means that something else has to exist in order for something to exist.

What both of the phrases mean in terms of time is that in every moment, existence is just beginning to exist through the lack of isn't, and dependent arising.

That's why the present is so important in Buddhism.

The present moment is all of creation.

Yes there is 'dependent origination' [inter-beingness] is Buddhism, but there is also the concept of 'Sunyata' aka 'emptiness' and that is ultimately extended to 'nothingness' [it is contentious]. But I do not agree with the opposing view taking into the account the principle of the Buddhist Tetralemma.

[surreptitious75]

Suppose knowledge [ what we can know ] here is never more than a subjective point of view ?

All knowledge is ultimately subjective because it is mind dependent but how subjective it is is another matter entirely
But the degree of rigour that is applied to any truth claim has to be sufficiently high for it to be regarded as objective

[Ecmandu]

To additionally explain this:

From a Buddhist perspective, there is something called "dependent arising".

This basically means that something else has to exist in order for something to exist.

What both of the phrases mean in terms of time is that in every moment, existence is just beginning to exist through the lack of isn't, and dependent arising.

That's why the present is so important in Buddhism.

The present moment is all of creation.

Yes there is 'dependent origination' [inter-beingness] is Buddhism, but there is also the concept of 'Sunyata' aka 'emptiness' and that is ultimately extended to 'nothingness' [it is contentious]. But I do not agree with the opposing view taking into the account the principle of the Buddhist Tetralemma.

The way I've had emptiness taught to me is that dreams are just as real as waking life, and thus, they are both not real, you must wake from the dream of the dreams and the dream of the waking life.

Since dreams are empty, and waking life is also empty, this is called "everything is emptiness". Unless you wake up from both dreams, then you are called an "awakened one", enlightened.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Ecmandu, you are a crazy bastard.

[iambiguous]

To ask the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a valid question, because, conceivably, there could be nothing. If the universe, really, was meaningless (which it isn't), then there would, actually, be nothing existing.

That's where things get tricky though. When we speak of things being "conceivable" we are back to that which we still do not fully understand about the evolution of matter into minds able to conceive of anything at all.

Or there are those who insist that, on the contrary, it is mind [God's or No Gods's -- the pantheists] that evolved into matter. But then they have absolutely no way in which to demonstrate that other than as an expression of the matter embodied in their own mind.

Activity implies intentionality, which entails meaning. Humans strive for various things, such as social power; animals strive to survive and reproduce; plants strive to grow and pass on their seed; even inorganic matter has a telos: gravitation --- accumulation of more energy, amassing itself.

Human activity [in the is/ought world] is embedded existentially in conflicting renditions of meaning. And even in regard to the either/or world, we don't grasp meaning beyond that which we are able to describe is in fact true or false.

We understand the meaning behind those activities that sustain our existence. But what can we understand regarding behaviors we ought to choose in order to accomplish this? Eventually we come to those interactions in which conflicting moral and political narratives arise.

Striving for something is intending, or meaning something. Everything means to do one thing or another. The universe is teleological.

There is something rather nothing, because the universe has meaning.

Okay, but that is not the way in which others use the word teleological. For them it suggests a universe in which somethingness is embedded in an essential meaning or purpose. There is a reason why it is this somethingness and not another. Or why it is something and not nothing at all. And then many invent "the Gods" or "a God, the God, my God" in order to assure themselves that existence is not encompassed in the "brute facticity" of existence itself.

But in a No God world, what might that meaning be?

[iambiguous]

Suppose knowledge [ what we can know ] here is never more than a subjective point of view ?

All knowledge is ultimately subjective because it is mind dependent but how subjective it is is another matter entirely
But the degree of rigour that is applied to any truth claim has to be sufficiently high for it to be regarded as objective

It seems reasonable that in a universal somethingness knowledge is only a "thing" if there is a brain/mind to have it. If the only accumulated knowledge in the entire universe is here on Earth and tomorrow the Really, Really, Really Big One [asteroid/comet] strikes it and obliterates all life forms, what of knowledge then?

But in the interim, I agree, some of our collected knowledge seems clearly to reflect that which is true for all of us. We call this objective knowledge because it seems to transcend any particular subject's point of view.

In a universe sans God.