Ex Nihilo Fit Aliquid
I have at various times found myself at odds with certain philosophers who think they have a monopoly on rational or logical thinking. This particularly seems to be the case with philosophers of religion, whether they are religious or atheist. Quentin Smith said that specialists in PoR always make better arguments than non-specialists. This is based on nothing more than their training, but it ignores what it takes to make a sound argument: the logic must be valid, and the premises must be reasonably supported. And this, in my experience, is where theistic philosophers usually fall flat. It doesn't matter whether you have a good grasp of the nuances of theistic arguments - if they are based on unsupported assumptions, they are not good arguments. Philosophers tend to get lost in all those nuances - the twists and turns of logic that comprise theistic justification for their belief - and they forget the more basic aspects of sound argumentation. They don't bother to ask whether the assumptions that are the basis of those arguments are really true.
I was called ignorant by Jeffery J Lowder when I suggested the possibility that the universe might have emerged from nothing at all, in keeping with the theories posited by the likes of Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss. Lowder's objection is that it isn't really nothing that the universe comes from - it's a quantum vacuum, which is something. I am supposedly ignorant of the philosophical concept of nothingness. But it isn't just me. My ignorance is shared by Hawking and Krauss and others, who have made a case for the universe arising from nothing. Victor Reppert made a post titled Earth to Lawrence Krauss, where he arrogantly calls out the supposed ignorance of the famous physicist with a quote from Manuel Alfonseca:
Second: out of nothing one can create nothing. Nothing does not exist, as we know since the time of Parmenides. As usual, nothing is confused with the vacuum. A vacuum is not nothing, because it has several qualities (space, time, energy, existence) that nothing does not have.To which I might reply: "Earth to Victor: Your concept of nothingness is nothing more than a philosophical fantasy, just like your concept of God. It has no basis in reality."
This raises the question of what exactly is meant by the word 'nothing'. Alfonesca seems to be confused about it. If we are talking about possible worlds, we cannot deny that at least in our world, nothingness does not exist, because the world contains something - it is not an empty world. And I think that's what Parmenides was talking about. So we can all agree that at least in our world (which, for purposes of this discussion, includes whatever might have given rise to our universe), nothing does not exist, in the sense that was meant by Parmenides. But that doesn't settle the question. What was it that gave rise to our universe?
If we narrow the scope of our question to the set of all things contained in our world, we can ask, is there something in that set from which the universe emerges? That answer might be that there is some existing thing (like God, for example), or it might be that it is the null (or empty) set that gives rise to the universe. The null set is, of course, a legitimate subset of all sets. But the latter possibility runs afoul of the long-standing philosophical belief "From nothing nothing comes". So according to those who agree with this philosophical presumption, there must be some existing thing that the universe comes from. My challenge to philosophers who hold to this principle is: "Prove it."
The traditional case for it is based on induction - it is what we have observed through the ages. Conservation of mass and energy tells us that things are made from other things. But more recent observation tells us otherwise. Particles do pop into and out of existence. And modern physical theory postulates that the same is true of the universe itself. What is the quantum vacuum? Many people, mainly for philosophical reasons, believe that it is actually something. Even physicists have described it as a "seething sea of particle pairs, energy fluctuations and force perturbations popping in and out of existence". But this is somewhat misleading. Yes, as we understand it, the reality is that this seething sea exists, but it is a sea of things that pop into existence from the vacuum. In other words, if we consider only where those particles and fields come from, not the "seething sea" of things that arises from it, then we are left with nothing. And as Lawrence Krauss puts it, "nothing is unstable". So that seething sea of things must inevitably arise from it.
And all those properties that Alfonesca attributes to this vacuum (space, time, energy, existence) are not real properties of the vacuum. They are properties of the detectable physical things that come into existence from the vacuum, not properties of the vacuum itself. Without all those things popping into existence, there would be nothing to measure - no detectable energy density, no electromagnetic fields, nothing to distinguish it from a true philosophical nothingness, except for the simple fact that things come from it.
If philosophers want to insist on this definition of nothingness as being the source of nothing, they can keep playing in their sandbox, and calling physicists ignorant for saying that the universe comes from nothing. But in the world I live in, the concept of philosophical nothingness is just a fantasy. In the real world, nothing is the vacuum that's left if you remove all matter and energy. Yet despite what the philosophers say, that vacuum still gives rise to stuff. So go ahead and call Hawking ignorant. Call Krauss ignorant. And me, too. What the philosophers haven't done is to prove their assertion that nothing comes from nothing.
"I was called ignorant by Jeffery J Lowder when I suggested the possibility that the universe might have emerged from nothing at all, in keeping with the theories posited by the likes of Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss. "
ReplyDeleteI would not use "ignorant" in the pejorative sense of implying stupidity, but something more like "not well considered on this particular issue"
Krauss has become a purveyor of woo. They say that when you fight dogs you get fleas, and Krauss got them real bad from all the kooks he has been so admirably battling for so long. His argument is one big equivocation and fails to demonstrate violation of conservation in any way. Kind of heartbreaking to see a rational guy sink so low.
Hawking does not have a theory for t=0, or t=10^-100 or anything of the sort. All he has is arm waving using theories that are known to break down in the region he is applying them. Utter irrationality.
The honest answer is that nobody knows.
"And as Lawrence Krauss puts it, "nothing is unstable""
More incoherent woo. Instability is a property of something, which means a thing is continually changing. All Krauss did is jam two mutually exclusive terms together.
" (space, time, energy, existence) are not real properties of the vacuum. They are properties of the detectable physical things that come into existence from the vacuum, not properties of the vacuum itself."
How do you know that? How do you know that space does not exist? Really? That is an interesting position. Space is just an abstract concept with no realization outside the brain process of the philosopher?
You know there is no such thing as the vacuum energy? Well, the increasing rate of expansion of our big bang indicates that may not be the case.
"Without all those things popping into existence, there would be nothing to measure - no detectable energy density, no electromagnetic fields, nothing to distinguish it from a true philosophical nothingness,"
No, "true philosophical nothingness" is absolutely nothing at all. No space, time, matter, or existence of any sort that would have properties of any sort whatsoever.
I have had a near death experience that gives me a visceral sense of absolutely nothing at all. It is difficult to imagine nothing because our brains are so highly adapted to analyze real things. My experience has strongly reinforced my personal conviction that atheism is the case. I was previously convinced there is no god, but now I am personally certain to a very strong degree there is no god. In my experience to die is to become void, no awareness of anything, no pain, joy, ideas or anything of any sort. No concept of ones own death because there is no such thing as me thinking anything any more.
Unlike matter/energy, consciousness is not conserved. If I had not regained consciousness I would never have known this sense of nothingness.
"If philosophers want to insist on this definition of nothingness as being the source of nothing,"
ReplyDeleteHow can nothing have a source? Why would nothing need a source? Sorry, your phrase is a non-sequitur. Or do you mean that nothing cannot be the source of something? Well, of course. You ask for proof, but what is your proof that something can pop into existence spontaneously out of absolutely nothing at all? That would be a violation of conservation, which is an inductively scientifically demonstrated fact. What is your evidence that this induction can somehow break down?
"In the real world, nothing is the vacuum that's left if you remove all matter and energy"
No. In the real world there is no such thing as nothing. Everything in the real world is something, which is why it is real.
"Yet despite what the philosophers say, that vacuum still gives rise to stuff."
Right, because it isn't nothing. There is no philosophical dilemma in that.
"So go ahead and call Hawking ignorant. Call Krauss ignorant."
Ok, done.
"And me, too"
I am speaking directly with you, my friend, so that would be rude.
"What the philosophers haven't done is to prove their assertion that nothing comes from nothing."
Indeed, that is a matter of scientific induction, not an absolute proof.
I would appreciate if you listen to my argument a little better. You seem to have ignored some key points I made.
DeleteI'll add one comment on your assertion about conservation. It is generally agreed among physicists, including Krauss that the concept of the universe from nothing does not violate any physical laws, including conservation of mass/energy. It is explained by a balance of positive and negative energy (and we know that mass and energy are interchangeable - that was a "violation of conservation" that was solved many years ago).
DeleteYou say "The honest answer is that nobody knows." Yet you seem pretty sure that your answers are the correct ones. Go figure.
"I would appreciate if you listen to my argument a little better. You seem to have ignored some key points I made."
DeleteWell, I quoted you substantially from beginning to end. In my view it is apparent I considered your words in much detail.
I don't know what details you consider that I failed to consider.
"It is explained by a balance of positive and negative energy"
There is no such thing as negative energy beyond a bookkeeping sign convention undergraduate students use to keep track of problems where work is done against a field.
So, where are the negative mass particles then? As you point out, mass and energy are interchangeable. Well, I don't see any negative mass particles in the standard model. This is the stuff of science fiction.
No, nothing was "solved" long ago or at any time with this negative energy speculation. People like Krauss like to sell books and make a lot of loose quips wait until the last few pages of the book to equivocate a space with a vacuum energy, fields, and particles as somehow "nothing" also like to peddle this negative energy woo.
Think about what this would mean. First, there is absolutely nothing at all, no space, no time, no mass, no energy, no fields, no virtual particles, no waves...absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Then, for no reason, by no cause, out of this utter absence of all things pops into being a vast amount of energy, which for some reason expands, yet in doing work against itself it also builds up this mysterious speculation of negative energy. But wait, it gets better, because the expansion is actually increasing in rate as this positive energy continues to do work against itself.
Why against itself? What else is there? Recall, we started this little adventure with absolutely nothing whatsoever. Since this existence just popped into being by no cause for no reason the only thing in existence to do work against was and is itself.
Well consider both the title and the subtitle of the Krauss book "A Universe from Nothing" "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?"
Yet, he does not start from nothing! Krauss starts from something! Sean Carroll speaks a bit on this here
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/
Carroll offers a few ideas that also start from space, which is not nothing.
Why did space spontaneously pop into being out of absolutely nothing at all?
At one point Carroll refers to "lazy" physicists. That is particularly true of people like Krauss who voice such disdain for philosophers yet ask such deeply philosophical questions that start with "why".
"You say "The honest answer is that nobody knows." Yet you seem pretty sure that your answers are the correct ones. Go figure."
That is not so hard to figure out. The origin of existence is a great and ancient riddle. No human being has solved it and published such a solution into general circulation. Many have tried, all have failed.
It is not always difficult to identify a wrong answer yet still not have the correct answer.
To start with absolutely nothing at all and suddenly pop into existence most certainly does violate conservation, science fiction about negative energy notwithstanding.
An infinite regression of a time sequence of events violates our very notions of time, counting, and infinity.
So, both choices are irrational and against scientific evidence based induction, yet I am absolutely certain that something exists, because I am absolutely certain I exist in some form.
Stardusty Psyche, have you considered the research work being done on Antimatter at CERN and Fermilab, along with DESY in Germany.
DeleteHERE is an interesting overview of Antimatter and its negative energy equivalent to ordinary matter.
Cheers
I forgot to add this little SNIPPET
DeleteStardusty,
DeleteI suggest that you become familiar with modern physics before you make declarations about what is science fiction. Papalinton has shown here that this is something that is taken seriously by physicists. You seem to take the perspective of those philosophers who deny it. You're not alone. But at least Sean Carroll understands the debate. He would heartily disagree with you about the existence of negative energy. The real question that I raise in this discussion is: what is the "nothing" that gives rise to the universe? How does that "nothing" differ from philosophical nothingness? And most importantly, what gives philosophers the right to declare that their core assumptions are correct, in light of newer information that might cast it into doubt?
Please excuse any formatting issues. I do not see a way to reply to a reply to a reply etc.
Delete"Papalinton August 23, 2016 at 3:19 AM
Stardusty Psyche, have you considered the research work being done on Antimatter"
Yes. Antimatter does not have negative mass, nor is it a negative energy equivalent. When a positron (antimatter) and electron (matter) "annihilate" each other they do not disappear from the universe, rather, a substantial amount of positive energy (the only kind of energy actually observed) is released.
Antimatter is not negative energy.
" How does that "nothing" differ from philosophical nothingness?"
The notion that there is more than one sort of "nothing" is, in any serious sense, nonsensical.
Colloquially I might answer "nothing" when asked what I am doing at the moment. Of course, that is not strictly true. If we are going to seriously contemplate the origin and nature of existence itself I would hope we will not be speaking in this conversational manner.
"And most importantly, what gives philosophers the right to declare that their core assumptions are correct, in light of newer information that might cast it into doubt?"
What newer information? The snippet cited is just some guy digging a hole in the ground. Is that supposed to be some kind of scientific observation or theory?
The snippet doesn't work as an analogy to absolutely nothing at all because it presupposes some stuff to dig. That doesn't explain creation ex nihilo.
If a multiverse exists, or if there is some existence out of which our big bang arose then there might be some kind of analogy to be made, but that only pushes the question back a step, a la theism.
Negative energy and negative mass are the stuff of science fiction and popular woo shows, some of which are narrated by formerly respectable physicists like Krauss and Hawking.
Shocking? Blasphemy? At least Krauss has not lost all his scientific bearings, in that he will still declare publicly that their are no scientific authorities.
Antimatter does not have negative mass, nor is it a negative energy equivalent.
Delete- You are the only one here who has suggested such a thing. I spoke of a balance between positive and negative energy, and you assumed that was some kind of negative mass (or presumably anti-matter). However, the concept of negative energy is real, and not science fiction, as you proclaim.
The notion that there is more than one sort of "nothing" is, in any serious sense, nonsensical.
- Well, that's the question I am trying to probe. Is it really nonsensical? If so, then please tell the world what kind of stuff the universe emerges from. You can say there's a multiverse, but that doesn't answer the question. A multiverse is just more than one instance if a universe expanding or emerging from something (or nothing, as the case may be). So what is it that the universe emerges from?
What newer information? The snippet cited is just some guy digging a hole in the ground. Is that supposed to be some kind of scientific observation or theory?
- It's just an illustration of a concept - one that you don't grok.
Shocking? Blasphemy? At least Krauss has not lost all his scientific bearings, in that he will still declare publicly that their are no scientific authorities.
- That's right. He's criticizing his own critics, who all seem to believe that they know better (just like you). I'm certainly not claiming to have the answers. I'm only asking the questions.
Stardusty Psyche, you seem deeply confused about the term 'negative energy', vis-a-vis your "Antimatter is not negative energy", using the word negative [as nothing] as opposed to something, and the valence charge of matter particles and anti-matter particles. This confused perspective is very much illustrated in your comment, "Negative energy and negative mass are the stuff of science fiction and popular woo shows, some of which are narrated by formerly respectable physicists like Krauss and Hawking, two among many of the most formidable scientific minds mapping the reality of both the quantum and cosmological world. Out of interest what's the contemporary scientific knowledge base on which your perspective is founded?
Deleteim-skepticalAugust 24, 2016 at 9:04 AM
Delete"the concept of negative energy is real, and not science fiction, as you proclaim."
In the same sense as the concept of god is real. I can give you vast numbers of links to god articles and all kinds of details about the supposed properties of god. However, both god and negative energy remain fiction.
"The notion that there is more than one sort of "nothing" is, in any serious sense, nonsensical.
- Well, that's the question I am trying to probe. Is it really nonsensical?
Yes. Nothing is absolutely nothing at all. It is not a thing itself, rather the total absence of all things. There cannot be more than one sort of total absences of all things.
"If so, then please tell the world what kind of stuff the universe emerges from."
That has nothing to do with the notion that there could somehow be more than 1 sort of nothing.
The origin of existence is an ancient unsolved riddle. All attempts to solve this riddle either merely push the problem back a step, make ad hoc definitions of new unknowns with no actual explanatory value, or posit logical absurdities.
That's why it is an unsolved riddle.
"What newer information? The snippet cited is just some guy digging a hole in the ground. Is that supposed to be some kind of scientific observation or theory?
- It's just an illustration of a concept - one that you don't grok."
It is an example of vague analogy with no actual explanatory value.
"Shocking? Blasphemy? At least Krauss ...-
I'm certainly not claiming to have the answers."
Krauss does make that claim, falsely, with nothing more than pedestrian equivocation that answers nothing of the riddle he proposes to answer in the subtitle of his book.
Nothing is absolutely nothing at all.
Delete- You are good at evading the question I pose. What is the stuff that the universe emerges from? How is it different from philosophical nothingness? If you're honest about it, you can't tell the difference any better than the rest of us.
"im-skepticalAugust 26, 2016 at 11:39 AM
DeleteNothing is absolutely nothing at all.
- You are good at evading the question I pose. What is the stuff that the universe emerges from? How is it different from philosophical nothingness? If you're honest about it, you can't tell the difference any better than the rest of us."
That is essentially what I said. You consider my answer an evasion but what I told you is that nobody has solved this riddle.
If by "the universe" you mean "our big bang" that is a potentially narrower question than if we define "the universe" as "all of existence", which is the sense I was addressing.
Nobody knows what caused our big bang either, but we have some hope of eventually arriving at at least a plausible and possibly testable answer to the origin of our big bang, as opposed to the origin of all existence which at this time seems to be an intractable problem.
The evidence we have is that of both existence and conservation of stuff, which immediately gives us the conclusion of eternally existing stuff, hence no philosophical nothingness and no emergence of existence itself. Unfortunately this leads to the logical absurdity of an infinite regression of a time sequence of events, hence, the riddle remains.
"PapalintonAugust 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM
ReplyDeleteStardusty Psyche, you seem deeply confused about the term 'negative energy', vis-a-vis your "Antimatter is not negative energy"
Actually, I was quite clear. Antimatter is not composed of negative energy and does not have negative mass.
" using the word negative [as nothing]"
Negative is an opposite of positive. Negative one plus positive one equals zero. So, -1/3 + -1/3 + +2/3 = 0. That is why the electric charge of a neutron is 0. Electric charge is either negative or positive. Energy and mass are not like electric charge in that respect because they are always positive.
" This confused perspective is very much illustrated in your comment, "SP Negative energy and negative mass are the stuff of science fiction and popular woo shows, some of which are narrated by formerly respectable physicists like Krauss and Hawking"
Yes, my comment is true, not confused. Do you have a specific refutation of it on technical or logical grounds?
"two among many of the most formidable scientific minds mapping the reality of both the quantum and cosmological world. "
Argument from authority. There are no scientific authorities, as Krauss himself strongly points out from time to time.
"Out of interest what's the contemporary scientific knowledge base on which your perspective is founded?"
The whole of known physics. The standard model.
All our equations of physics and chemistry are just that, equations.
LHS = RHS
No poof term. Every such equation is a restatement of conservation. I enjoy college science textbooks because they are a well organized presentation of our present state of established science. I have a collection of college physics, math, and chemistry textbooks. There is no such thing as negative energy except as a bookeeping sign convention used to denote transfer of energy from one place to another.
Velocity is sometimes negative, not because one can travel slower than 0 m/s, rather, merely as a direction convention using an arbitrary reference point. There is not such thing as negative speed, just as there is no such thing as negative energy, merely sign conventions to describe which direction things are moving.
E=mc^2
Perhaps the most famous equation of all. It is, among other things, a restatement of conservation. There is no poof term. Further, if energy were negative then mass would also have to be negative.
Yet, there is no such thing as negative mass, which would be required by the mass/energy equation of special relativity.
Negative energy and its required negative mass are the stuff of science fiction. They exist only in the abstract, which is to say they have no physical realization outside the brain process of the individual conceiving of them.
All efforts to describe the concept fall on deaf ears. But here's one more.
Delete"im-skepticalAugust 26, 2016 at 11:41 AM
DeleteAll efforts to describe the concept fall on deaf ears. But here's one more."
Yes, I am aware of these absurd arguments. The negative is just a sign convention to do bookkeeping as to where energy resides relative to an arbitrary reference point.
If I start with 2 balls next to each other and I push them apart I must have a source of positive energy, the only sort of energy there is. Gravity does not expend energy but only applies an attractive force. A force may be applied but if there is no motion there is no energy expended.
As I push the balls apart I do work against the gravitational field. This gravitational field then becomes a sort of storage system for positive energy, but the negative sign allows us to keep the bookkeeping straight as to where the energy is stored.
Now suppose I stop pushing on the balls and they are accelerated together by gravity. The stored energy in the gravitational field accelerates the balls together. What happens when they collide? The kinetic energy may be converted to heat (molecular kinetic energy) like when a rock falls from space and hits the Earth.
These are all just transfers of positive energy from one place to another, kept track of by a sign convention. The notion that this somehow demonstrates something called negative energy is absurd.
But where did the balls come from? What pushed them apart? Even if you can say that to separate the balls requires energy that is somehow balanced by this silly notion of negative energy where did the energy of the balls themselves come from? The matter is equivalent to energy, a very great deal of energy. So where is the repository for the great negative energy needed to balance the positive energy of the matter in the balls?
But let's just suppose this fantasy of negative energy were somehow true, what is the first cause?
If there is a philosophical nothing how can this positive and negative balancing act suddenly appear out of absolutely nothing at all?
One can only wonder at the motivations for otherwise respectable scientists to peddle this pedestrian woo. Perhaps they simply enjoy the fame, admiration, and money that publishing this sort of nonsense brings.
If there is a philosophical nothing how can this positive and negative balancing act suddenly appear out of absolutely nothing at all?
DeleteIt's what we observe. If you say it's "space" or something else, what does that mean? It's still nothing. No mass, no energy, then suddenly there is mass and energy. Without negative energy, there is no conservation. You say it's woo, but what you're peddling is woo.
SP - ""two among many of the most formidable scientific minds mapping the reality of both the quantum and cosmological world. "
ReplyDeleteArgument from authority. There are no scientific authorities, as Krauss himself strongly points out from time to time."
No SP, it wasn't an argument from authority. It was an observation about your assertion how Krauss, Hawking et al are all wrong and you are right.
Interestingly though, apparently negative mass appears to not disturb the mass/energy equation of Einstein's theory of relativity, SEE HERE. The article does make the point about the importance of the discovery of gravitational waves necessary for negative mass to occur in our space/time. But the existence of these too have been recently confirmed; this year in fact, SEE HERE
Cheers
Stardusty seems to be rather like a Thomist - stuck in a metaphysical view that remains static as science moves forward. Admittedly, the most recent conceptions of cosmology are theoretical, but they are consistent with observation, as any viable theory must be. But observation includes things that would defy a more traditional metaphysical view. Observations like the fact that particles come out of (apparently) nothing. They exist briefly and then return to nothingness. And this doesn't violate conservation of mass/energy, or any physical law.
DeleteIf you cling to the metaphysics of the past, you have to deny at least part of what is observed, as Stardusty does. Given enough time, he'll be just like the Thomists, believing things that are utterly out of sync with science, and clinging dogmatically to those outdated and obsolete beliefs.
"Cosmologists Prove Negative Mass Can Exist In Our Universe"
Delete"Negative mass is the hypothetical idea"
"Nobody knows whether negative mass can exist "
These statements all come from the same link you provided! Obviously, this is just another case of hyped up woo in the title with waffling in the article to avoid an outright lie in the end. Just like Krauss.
im-skepticalAugust 27, 2016 at 6:46 PM
Delete" But observation includes things that would defy a more traditional metaphysical view. Observations like the fact that particles come out of (apparently) nothing. They exist briefly and then return to nothingness."
That is a Kraussian equivocation of the word "nothing". Virtual particles come out of space, which is not nothing.
"And this doesn't violate conservation of mass/energy, or any physical law."
Because space is not nothing and virtual particles might not be anything more than a mathematical concept or a very short term transitional phase, depending on who you ask.
What they are not is something from nothing because space is not nothing and virtual particles are not persistent.
" Given enough time, he'll be just like the Thomists, believing things that are utterly out of sync with science, and clinging dogmatically to those outdated and obsolete beliefs."
On the contrary, I am very happy to follow along with advances in science, but equivocations of the word "nothing" do not qualify as a scientific theory. That is just a way for Krauss to make millions, which he has done.
That is a Kraussian equivocation of the word "nothing". Virtual particles come out of space, which is not nothing.
DeleteTo say it's "something" is equivocation. There's nothing there. The only reason you need to call it "something" is because you stick to your dogma of nothing coming from nothing, despite what we observe.
Actually, there is a great deal of science that says there is "something there"
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
The truth is that nobody knows the fundamental structure of existence. But we know enough to know that the idea that space is absolutely nothing at all is certainly wrong.
We also know enough to recognize woo mongers like Chopra. It is very unfortunate that some actual scientists, in the process of popularizing science, end up selling their own versions of nonsense.
Taking a sign convention used in ordinary energy calculations and twisting that around into some kind of so-called negative energy is just inexcusable.
You don't get it. This vacuum energy is the background energy in space, which has stuff in it (like quantum particles). Read the article you linked. The stuff in space had to come into existence before there was any background energy. This vacuum energy is a red herring. It's not the substance of empty space.
DeleteIf you thing there's actually something that virtual particles come from, then where does that something come from? All you're doing is kicking the can down the road. And when you say that matter comes from this stuff (that has no matter and no energy) but it's all positive energy, then you're the one trying to violate the laws of physics.
SP - ""Cosmologists Prove Negative Mass Can Exist In Our Universe"
Delete"Negative mass is the hypothetical idea"
"Nobody knows whether negative mass can exist "
These statements all come from the same link you provided!..."
Therein lies the problem of your lack of understanding of the sciences. You must read beyond the first few lines of the article to understand and appreciate the context of what is being promulgated. The math is impeccable, the accumulative supporting science is kosher, and the theory appears flawless. Proving the existence of negative mass and negative energy is now pretty much simply a matter of time to develop the instruments to confirm their existence in our universe. And just as we once viewed the existence of quantum particles [quarks, leptons, bosons etc], the recent discovery and confirmation of the elusive Higgs Boson, along with Einstein's general theory of relativity before it, together now with the second confirmed observation of the existence of gravitation waves earlier this year, 2016, as all hypothetical, I know where I'm putting my money. The question is, will you eat crow when the existence of negative energy and negative mass is confirmed? The math and solid calculations have proved they can exist in our current understanding of the standard model. Only their confirmation through observation remains. I will be most obliged to do the same if their existence does not come to pass.
Indeed, I'm putting my money where my mouth is. :o)
im-skepticalAugust 27, 2016 at 10:11 PM
DeleteYou don't get it. This vacuum energy is the background energy in space, which has stuff in it (like quantum particles). "
That is one idea. Another idea is that space itself expands and that the vacuum energy is a property of space, not something in space.
"Read the article you linked. The stuff in space had to come into existence before there was any background energy. "
The truth is nobody knows the origins of our big bang, why or how an infinitesimal point would expand or explode, what the origins of the 4 forces of nature are, how quantum mechanics is to be reconciled with general relativity in the first instants of the big bang, and quite a few more fundamentals.
"This vacuum energy is a red herring. It's not the substance of empty space."
Nobody knows that one way or the other.
"If you thing there's actually something that virtual particles come from, then where does that something come from?"
Indeed!!! That is why the origin of existence itself as well as our big bang, our space, and all the material existence remains an unsolved riddle.
"All you're doing is kicking the can down the road"
Every new discovery does just that, never getting to the ultimate reality, only peeling back the onion one more layer.
"And when you say that matter comes from this stuff (that has no matter and no energy) but it's all positive energy, then you're the one trying to violate the laws of physics."
Indeed, creation ex nihilo is irrational on philosophical grounds as well as a violation of conservation.
Hence, the great riddle or the origin of existence remains unsolved by all.
"Proving the existence of negative mass and negative energy is now pretty much simply a matter of time to develop the instruments to confirm their existence in our universe...negative energy and negative mass is confirmed? .... Only their confirmation through observation remains."
DeleteHold up there buckeroo...Supposedly gravity works by negative energy, and gravity is all around us, so how elusive can this negative energy be?
See, I don't mind somebody positing some new, undiscovered stuff, or some new model, that's great, that's what scientists do, and most obviously physics today is highly incomplete, so the answers must be in some undiscovered kind of stuff and new models.
What I object to is peddling woo, taking bits and pieces from established science, equivocating, misrepresenting, and getting rich selling it in books and paid speaking events.
Chopra does it wholesale and has made a fortune spewing gibberish. Krauss has been much more circumspect but has found a way to cash in on that action yet still maintain some level of respectability as a scientist.
Another idea is that space itself expands and that the vacuum energy is a property of space, not something in space.
Delete- Even if empty space is some kind of "stuff", that doesn't explain the vacuum energy is minuscule. It wouldn't explain the emergence of a universe from a tiny point.
The truth is nobody knows the origins of our big bang, why or how an infinitesimal point would expand or explode, what the origins of the 4 forces of nature are, how quantum mechanics is to be reconciled with general relativity in the first instants of the big bang, and quite a few more fundamentals.
- I didn't claim they did. But why do you pretend to know that Krauss and Hawking are wrong? You think you know more about it than they do?
Nobody knows that one way or the other.
- You are confused. Vacuum energy is not the same thing as quantum vacuum. That's why I called it a red herring.
Indeed!!! That is why the origin of existence itself as well as our big bang, our space, and all the material existence remains an unsolved riddle.
- So please stop pretending that your ideas about it are superior.
Indeed, creation ex nihilo is irrational on philosophical grounds as well as a violation of conservation.
- Irrational on your outdated metaphysics, but consistent with science. And it does NOT violate any laws. But if you think your conception of it (with no negative energy) is consistent with any laws of conservation, please explain it, because I don't see how that works. Perhaps you can hold a press conference and impress the entire physics community with your astonishing insight.
"- I didn't claim they did. But why do you pretend to know that Krauss and Hawking are wrong? You think you know more about it than they do?"
DeleteBecause they are just equivocating and misrepresenting bits an pieces of known science.
As to their motivations, well, I am not a mind reader. Greed and lust for fame are the simplest explanations.
"- So please stop pretending that your ideas about it are superior. "
Actually, I am not a physicist, but I know enough basic physics to call out certain charlatans.
"- Irrational on your outdated metaphysics, but consistent with science."
Ok, what is the cause of an event ex nihilo? How is an event without a cause rational? How is a cause ex nihilo rational?
" But if you think your conception of it (with no negative energy) is consistent with any laws of conservation, please explain it"
Nobody has that explanation, hence the great riddle remains unsolved.
"because I don't see how that works"
Don't feel bad, neither does anybody else! We are all in the same boat of this unsolved riddle. Welcome aboard brother :-)
"Perhaps you can hold a press conference and impress the entire physics community with your astonishing insight."
The phrase "nobody knows" is unlikely to impress. But then, considering a simple bookkeeping sign convention to be some great new discovery of a heretofore undetected form of energy, "negative" energy, is laughable on its face. Pity it gets taken so seriously by the credulous.
SP - "Hold up there buckeroo...Supposedly gravity works by negative energy, and gravity is all around us, so how elusive can this negative energy be?"
DeleteIt's pretty much only elusive because the instruments and experiments to confirm their existence have yet to emerge. It's also elusive only to those who have yet to wrap their head around the concept. Indeed there are many parallels between when the Higgs Boson was fist promulgated and when it was confirmed, some 50 years later or thereabouts, to that of the search for negative energy and negative mass.
Your comment above equally reflects the same sense of negativity at the time of the Higgs Boson confirmation: 'Hold up buckeroo. Supposedly matter is made up of particles with mass, and these particles are all around us, so how elusive can the structure of mass be so elusive?'
The good thing about science is that it is now attempting to disprove the existence of the Higgs Boson.
Because they are just equivocating and misrepresenting bits an pieces of known science.
Delete- I don't think so. They are challenging the philosophical beliefs that people have (just because those beliefs are traditional - not because they are justified by observation). This is upsetting to many, I understand. But you can't point to anything they say that is factually wrong.
Actually, I am not a physicist, but I know enough basic physics to call out certain charlatans.
- I know a little about it myself.
Ok, what is the cause of an event ex nihilo? How is an event without a cause rational? How is a cause ex nihilo rational?
- I am an empiricist. It is rational to believe something that is justified by observation. We don't have to know the cause, or whether there is a cause. It is irrational to cling to beliefs that are not supported by observation.
Nobody has that explanation, hence the great riddle remains unsolved.
- Yes, well their explanation is consistent with conservation, and yours isn't.
Don't feel bad, neither does anybody else! We are all in the same boat of this unsolved riddle. Welcome aboard brother :-)
- I don't feel bad. I think you don't know what you're talking about.
The phrase "nobody knows" is unlikely to impress. But then, considering a simple bookkeeping sign convention to be some great new discovery of a heretofore undetected form of energy, "negative" energy, is laughable on its face. Pity it gets taken so seriously by the credulous.
- Sometimes bookkeeping is important. Yours doesn't add up.
PapalintonAugust 28, 2016 at 6:28 PM
ReplyDeleteSP - "Hold up there buckeroo...Supposedly gravity works by negative energy, and gravity is all around us, so how elusive can this negative energy be?"
"It's pretty much only elusive because the instruments and experiments to confirm their existence have yet to emerge."
If gravity stores this vast amount of negative energy it should be very easy to detect Positive energy takes many forms and is very much in evidence in great quantities. Yet so-called negative energy hides only in gravity and cannot be converted to anything else. Really? No, my friend, the much simpler explanation is that people peddle woo for their own selfish reasons.
"Indeed there are many parallels between when the Higgs Boson"
No, if negative energy is so abundant in gravity it should not take a collider to detect it. Why is it that positive energy takes various forms and is easily detectable at our ordinary level of observation but so-called negative energy stays locked up only in gravitational potential energy? The answer is simple. Gravitational negative energy is nonsense peddled by woo mongers, and merely a bookkeeping sign convention these woo mongers abuse for profit.
" Gravitational negative energy is nonsense peddled by woo mongers ..."
ReplyDelete"I have had a near death experience that gives me a visceral sense of ..."
Who's peddling woo here?
"im-skepticalAugust 31, 2016 at 7:09 AM
ReplyDelete" Gravitational negative energy is nonsense peddled by woo mongers ..."
"I have had a near death experience that gives me a visceral sense of ..."
Who's peddling woo here?"
Krauss.
"When Jerry Coyne agreed with Albert, Krauss claimed that his book was not “focusing on the classical question that has bother[ed] philosophers, but I don’t think I ever claim to”. That “classical question” is “why is there something rather than nothing?”. The subtitle of Krauss’ book is “Why there is something rather than nothing”. Go figure.
Inconsistency with “nothing” abounds. Having admitted that it would be “disingenuous to suggest that empty space endowed with energy … is really nothing”, just a few pages later he is telling us that in a universe emptied by expansion “nothingness would reign supreme”, and that the creation of particle from the empty space around a black hole shows that “under the right conditions, not only can nothing become something, it is required to”.
The book descends into the ridiculous. Krauss tells us that, ‘“Something” may not be very special or even very common in the multiverse’. So, in the totality of physical existence, it might be that only some things are “something” but most things aren’t “something”. That is exactly as daft as it sounds. This nonsense has no warrant from modern cosmology."
https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/a-universe-from-nothing-what-you-should-know-before-you-hear-the-krauss-craig-debate/
As for my near death experience, indeed, by definition if one nearly dies then one has a near death experience. I have.
Right away your woo antennae start to twitch, and rightly so, fair enough. We are all more than a little tired of all the fruitcakes who claim to have gone to heaven, or hell, or spoken with angels, seen bright lights and on and on, so now they can tell us what life after death is like. Bullocks.
It is difficult to imagine nothing. Our imaginations evolved to have imaginary objects. When we think about something we think about some thing, a thing, an object. Absolutely nothing at all is not an object of any sort, rather the absence of all space, time, matter, energy and existence of any kind. So it is no trivial matter to conceive of absolutely nothing at all.
But a blackout helps. There is a void in my stream of consciousness. I have found that that void gives me a visceral sense of what it means to no longer exist as a conscious being. I am deeply and firmly personally convinced that the utter lack of awareness I "remember" is representative of death.
Of course, I do not remember unawareness itself, rather, a gap in my personal timeline of consciousness that is mildly disconcerting from time to time.
It would be a mistake to say I died and came back to life, as so many people with near death experiences claim. To die is to never live again. Clearly, I was alive after the impact and during the trip to the hospital and while my skull was being x-rayed, and while I was in the hospital bed unconscious. I simply had no conscious awareness of anything in those times nor have I ever had any recollection from that time period. It is the perception now of that gap that gives me such a profound and personal sense of what death is like, a perception I would never have experienced had I never regained consciousness.
What part of my words do you find to be woo?
"- I am an empiricist. It is rational to believe something that is justified by observation. We don't have to know the cause, or whether there is a cause. It is irrational to cling to beliefs that are not supported by observation."
ReplyDeleteOk, the overwhelming observation is conservation. We never scientifically observe creation ex nihilo. Nor do we ever scientifically observe the disappearance of stuff from existence. We observe abundant existence that is conserved.
This immediately makes eternal existence of stuff the evidenced conclusion. The logic could not be more straight forward. If it is here, and it cannot be created, and it cannot be destroyed, then it has always been here and will always be here.
Case closed, except for one little problem. The infinite regression of a time sequence of events is irrational.
Conservation leading to an eternal future existence is no problem, because an infinity is not required. Time will simply keep counting up without limit, never reaching infinity, always remaining a finite time from now, yet never ending. This is perfectly rational.
But for our origins an infinite past is demanded by conservation and existence, yet this is irrational. Some say a timeless thing existed which then gave rise to our timeline, avoiding the seeming requirement of an infinite past time, which is irrational. But that doesn't work either, because this scenario requires a timeless thing to act in a time sequence of events, a difficulty rendering a timeless god preposterous on its face.
But for our origins an infinite past is demanded by conservation and existence, yet this is irrational. Some say a timeless thing existed which then gave rise to our timeline, avoiding the seeming requirement of an infinite past time, which is irrational. But that doesn't work either, because this scenario requires a timeless thing to act in a time sequence of events, a difficulty rendering a timeless god preposterous on its face.
DeleteSeems you're in a quandary. If you only allow for certain possibilities, and they are all paradoxical, then either your logic is faulty, or you are too limited in the possibilities you allow for.
You speak of what we observe. We DO observe particles created from nothing. It's not space with energy content. It's nothing (and it happens to be amid a lot of stuff), as I tried to explain over and over, but you won't listen.
You speak of conservation. You won't admit that IF there is positive and negative energy, then conservation is not violated.
Maybe if you take these possibilities seriously, you would see that your paradoxes vanish. No violations of conservation or any physical law, and no paradoxes. Just reality.
What stops you from seeing this as a possibility is a philosophical view - a view that screams it can't be the case - because ... because .. it just can't.
"Seems you're in a quandary. If you only allow for certain possibilities, and they are all paradoxical, then either your logic is faulty, or you are too limited in the possibilities you allow for."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, which most people deal with using the speculation of god. This situation also leaves the door open to woo mongers who make up nonsense wholesale for profit.
I prefer the simple truth that nobody knows, and all the best of luck in the extraordinarily difficult search for the solution to this ancient riddle.
"We DO observe particles created from nothing."
Nope, never happened. Please provide the pictures, accelerator data, or whatever you think you have that shows this.
In particular I would like to see some evidence of the spontaneous and permanent increase in mass ex nihlio. I will not be holding my breath.
" It's nothing"
Nope, no such thing around for us to observe or start with. Absolutely nothing is the absence of space, time, matter, energy and existence of any sort.
Sorry my friend, you have fallen prey to the damage woo mongers like Krauss do, which is one reason I so strongly object to them. Please see the above quote in a previous post from a physicist who is equally dismissive of the obvious equivocations stating "Inconsistency with “nothing” abounds."
" You won't admit that IF there is positive and negative energy, then conservation is not violated."
Oh no, that is not what I said. In that case the problem of first cause would remain, however.
Sure, if we ever find that vast amounts of positive mass can spontaneously come bursting out of a mathematical point going in one direction, and an equal amount of negative mass can spontaneously burst out of that same mathematical point going some other direction and both are persistent for billions of years yet somehow do not annihilate each other back into nothingness again for those billions of years...
Sure, if pigs could fly...
"Maybe if you take these possibilities seriously, you would see that your paradoxes vanish."
If you took the speculation of god seriously the paradoxes would vanish, if we don't mind speculating about superstuff that by mere definition solves all the problems.
That is in fact the approach most people take when they define god as omnipotent, eternal, outside space and time.
"What stops you from seeing this as a possibility is a philosophical view"
No, what stops me is that it is entirely speculative, there is no cohesive theory that actually accounts for our universe, and most especially the eagerness of woo mongers to pass off a sign convention as some great answer to these ancient riddles.
I prefer the simple truth that nobody knows, and all the best of luck in the extraordinarily difficult search for the solution to this ancient riddle.
Delete- The only ones who claim to know are the religious. I merely ask you to consider possibilities, and not pretend that you have some kind of religious knowledge of what is and what isn't. That's exactly what you're doing.
Nope, never happened. Please provide the pictures, accelerator data, or whatever you think you have that shows this.
- I read. I am aware of scientific advances that you evidently aren't. There is no debate about whether these things happen. The debate is strictly philosophical. Is it really nothing from which things arise, or is is something that is merely indistinguishable from nothing? That's what you don't understand. You have the totally wrong idea that it's actually some kind of substance that has energy content. Not true. All those people who take issue with Krauss have not disagreed with his physics - but just with what this nothingness is.
Oh no, that is not what I said. In that case the problem of first cause would remain, however.
- There is no first cause problem if there is no first event. Again, you are mired in ancient philosophical belief that has no justification in logic. You can't logically prove or demonstrate that there must be a first cause.
Sure, if pigs could fly...
- You really need to read up on the current theories. It is believed that that is explained by cosmic inflation, which exceeds the speed of light, and thus prevents the young universe from self-annihilating.
If you took the speculation of god seriously the paradoxes would vanish, if we don't mind speculating about superstuff that by mere definition solves all the problems
- There is a significant difference. God speculation is not based on observation, not is is logically consistent. Modern physics offers explanations without any departure from observed facts or from logical consistence. You just don't like it because it upsets your philosophical apple-cart. That and the fact that it doesn't attempt to answer those grand philosophical questions like "why is reality this way rather than some other way?"
You keep complaining about woo-mongers. Your biggest complaint seems to be that they don't peddle enough woo to satisfy your need to have those grand questions answered. Yet at the same time, you keep telling me (and I keep agreeing) that nobody has those answers.
I'm not sure you're going to make headway, Skep. From his posts, it seems SP is a congenital contrarian or the archetypal agent-provocateur, or to borrow from a well-known epithet: A rebel without clue. :o)
DeleteOf interest, none of his comments offer a supporting citation for his diatribe. The forlorn attempts at alluding to Chopra illustrates more about his contrarian attitude towards science than a bona fide counter-proposition of any merit.
But he is entertaining.
"Of interest, none of his comments offer a supporting citation for his diatribe. The forlorn attempts at alluding to Chopra illustrates more about his contrarian attitude towards science than a bona fide counter-proposition of any merit."
DeleteSee
https://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/08/ex-nihilo-fit-aliquid.html?showComment=1472938378251#c3872501886826709652
September 3, 2016 at 2:32 PM
Luke Barnes is just one physicist who has roundly criticized Krauss. His equivocation on the word "nothing" is so patently obvious that I often wonder why one would take him seriously anymore.
Krauss deserves to associated with Chopra, he brought it upon himself. With Chopra the charlatanism is obvious to anybody with actual scientific background. With Krauss it is more subtle because he has published work and he has been such a great public advocate of science and reason for so long.
So, it is kind of heartbreaking to watch this guy sink to the level of arm waving and blatant inconsistencies claiming to answer questions that have been asked for millennia and remain unanswered.
What's disheartening is listening to you. Here's a Scientific American article that describes the same thing Krauss is saying. They, too, question whether it is appropriate to call it nothing, but at least they understand what the question refers to, and you clearly don't.
DeleteI now see the connection between SP and Lukes Barnes. Like SP, Barnes seems to enjoy a pathology for going after those scientists that are clearly either atheist or antithiest. HERE is a critique of Barnes' attack on Prof Jerry Coyne's book, "Why Evolution is True."
DeleteAND HERE is another perspective that adds a context to Barnes relationship with theologians and philosophers of religion.
Barnes is certainly a POSTER BOY for the fawning theists.
It is also interesting to note in THIS ARTICLE why theists swoon to Barnes' assertion. It is all ...... so existentially comforting and that we are so adept at kidding ourselves there is no asteroid out there, or some other cosmic catastrophe that could extinguish humanity without one hint of purpose or intent. In other words, the stark reality of our cosmological insignificance is simply too much to bear.
It is also interesting to note Barnes' clearly apologist perspective in THIS PIECE at his own blog. He seems to be very well versed in and strongly opinionated about what a God should or shouldn't look like, what it would do or not do, and how it would present or not present itself through nature.
If anyone is mixing woo with science, it ain't Krauss.
Interesting that Stardusty would cite Barnes, isn't it? Rather like Thomas Nagel.
Deletebut he did say that he had “reason to suspect that Barnes is operating from a covert position as an apologist”
And I have begun to suspect that the same may be true of Stardusty.
"If anyone is mixing woo with science, it ain't Krauss."
DeleteFalse dichotomy. Both can be peddling their own versions of woo.
I find a great source for the errors of Christian apologetics to be Muslim apologists.
I find a great source for the errors of Muslim apologetics to be Christian apologists.
Have you ever noticed that effect?
Indeed, Luke Barnes has fundamental errors of assumption as to the notion that the constants of nature are variable at all, much less randomly variable with some sort of assumed probability distributions.
Why are so many people so invested in the patently false assertion that somehow somebody has figured out how to get all existence to spontaneously pop out of absolutely nothing at all?
What is so difficult about simply telling the truth? Nobody knows. It is as simple as that.
Why go through all these these mental gymnastics and torturous equivocations that demonstrate no rational solution?
It has yet to be solved, plain and simple.
In fact, creation ex nihlio might not even turn out to be the solution. Some sort of infinite existence might be the answer, but that has not been solved either.
Krauss is a woo monger because he claims to have solved something nobody has solved and his story turns out to be absurd equivocations.
DeleteGood question. Why do you pretend to know? That's not what I'm doing, or Krauss. But this is a theory, and you just know that it can't be true. Just like the anti-evolutionists.
"(Note that as stated in this paper, the metastable false vacuum has “neither matter nor space or time,” but is a form of wavefunction referred to as “quantum potential.” While most of us wouldn’t be inclined to call this “nothing,” physicists do refer to it as such.)"
ReplyDeletePhysicists who refer to something as nothing lack language skills or are simply using the term "nothing" in a loose and colloquial manner.
Ask me what I am doing, to which I say "nothing". Well, fine, people say that but of course it is not literally true. I am continuously doing something, else I am dead.
I am perfectly well aware of the fact that many people lack the precision in their language to understand what nothing strictly is, which is the absences of any existence of any sort.
The article provides no clue regarding the riddle of creation ex nihlio, since it presupposes an existence of some sort, a wavefunction, a metastable false vacuum.
Sorry my friend, it is you who does not understand the references.
but is a form of wavefunction referred to as “quantum potential.”
DeleteIn other words, it is purely a mathematical contrivance. It has no substance, though it may describe reality in the manner of many other equations in physics. This is not a lack of language skills, except perhaps on your part.
but is a form of wavefunction referred to as “quantum potential.”
Delete"In other words, it is purely a mathematical contrivance."
The wave function is a mathematical description of a physical reality, not a hypothetical abstract object.
" It has no substance, though it may describe reality in the manner of many other equations in physics."
You contradict yourself in the space of a single sentence. Equations of physics describe an existent physical reality.
" This is not a lack of language skills, except perhaps on your part."
Sorry, but your difficulty seems to go deeper than I had previously realized. It is not a mere language problem but you apparently have a fundamental lack of understanding of the relationship between equations of physics and physical reality as opposed to hypothetical mathematical expressions that have no physical realization.
If one starts with a wave function then one necessarily starts with the presupposition of an existent physical reality. Absolutely nothing at all has no wave function. Absolutely nothing at all has no mathematical expression other than zero.
To mathematically model creation ex nihlio put zero on the LHS and fill in your hypothesis on the RHS.
0 = X
When you can make X equal a positive real number get back to me. I will not be holding my breath.
The wave function is a mathematical description of a physical reality, not a hypothetical abstract object.
Delete- That's precisely why I say that this function has no substance.
You contradict yourself in the space of a single sentence. Equations of physics describe an existent physical reality.
- So you agree - sort of. But the physical reality can indeed describe nothing. That's what the wave function describes, at least in one of its states.
If one starts with a wave function then one necessarily starts with the presupposition of an existent physical reality. Absolutely nothing at all has no wave function. Absolutely nothing at all has no mathematical expression other than zero.
- You're wrong. As I said, the wave function describes the physical reality, which can be nothing, and what it describes is something coming from nothing, which agrees exactly with what we observe. And this wave function predicts the inevitable inflation of universes - not just our own.
Don't try to pretend that you understand this stuff. You don't. You tried to tell me that this wave function is the "stuff" that the universe comes from. That shows how little you understand about it.
"- You're wrong. As I said, the wave function describes the physical reality, which can be nothing,"
DeleteMore self contradictory confusion on your part. Nothing is not a physical reality of any sort. If there is any sort of physical reality then there is not nothing, there is something.
The notion of a nothing physical reality is utterly incoherent. You really should do some serious introspection and get your concept of nothing as opposed to a physical reality in order in your mind.
"what it describes is something coming from nothing,"
More woo, and it really is unfortunate that so many people are so invested in this idea, that the great unsolved riddle of the origin of existence has somehow been solved, that large numbers of people, such as yourself, are susceptible to these incoherent notions a physical reality that is nothing, or a function that describes nothing yet is not precisely equal to zero.
"which agrees exactly with what we observe."
No scientific observations of something from nothing exist. If you disagree then I would really appreciate the link to the article documenting the scientifically observed spontaneous and persistent increase in mass/energy of a closed system.
"And this wave function predicts the inevitable inflation of universes - not just our own."
Inflation is of something. Nothing cannot inflate. Zero does not become a more expansively distributed zero. I sincerely suggest you meditate, or study, or deeply reflect on these grave and fundamental misconceptions you hold.
" You tried to tell me that this wave function is the "stuff" that the universe comes from."
No I didn't. If that is what you got then you did not read carefully enough.
The wave function is a description of a physical reality, not the physical reality itself.
I really do invite you, my friend, to deeply contemplate on the meaning of "nothing" and "zero". These are not easy concepts, and they present a number of philosophical challenges going back millennia to the times when zero was not a part of mathematics.
A testament to the difficulty of the philosophy of zero is the susceptibility of the public to scientists turned charlatans like Krauss who manipulate and equivocate their way to millions in cash, playing upon the challenges zero poses to the human mind.
In one discussion I was listening to (I wish I still had the link) a scientist was speaking to some philosophers and he mentioned "different kinds of nothing", which of course gave rise to an immediate burst of laughter, the sort of laughter that comes from a group of individuals deeply knowledgeable in a subject who instantly recognized the absurdity of a statement intended to be serious and meaningful.
Zero is not described by a function of any sort, much less a wave function. Zero does not expand. Zero does not occupy space. Zero is not a physical reality. There are not multiple sorts of zero.
As I mentioned previously, I have lived though a blackout, a near death experience. For me it personalized the concepts of nothing, zero, and death in ways that are not easy for me to do justice to in writing. I do not suggest you seek out an injury induced blackout near death experience! There are other means available to gain greater insight into the understanding of what nothing truly means, so I sincerely urge you to avail yourself of such means.
Zero does not become a more expansively distributed zero. I sincerely suggest you meditate, or study, or deeply reflect on these grave and fundamental misconceptions you hold.
DeleteThis is what I have invited you to do. What do you get when you add +3 and -3? What do those virtual particles become when they recombine (with no emission of energy - this is not matter and anti-matter)? And what were they before they came into existence? I'm only asking that YOU contemplate these questions. And stop acting like a theist who arrogantly proclaims he knows the answers.
"What do you get when you add +3 and -3?"
DeleteSomething must cause you to perform this addition. Even if you were to suppose this as yet undemonstrated notion of negative energy somehow does have a physical realization, to begin with absolutely nothing at all there is still a lack of cause to make absolutely nothing at all split into +x and -x.
Given the first cause impasse as well as the entirely speculative nature of negative mass you have failed to advance at all toward a solution of this ancient riddle, the origin of existence from absolutely nothing at all.
"And what were they before they came into existence?"
The something that is space.
The something that is space.
DeleteNo, it's not. Read the article I cited.
You have cited no articles that suggest any particles of any kind, much less persistent particles with substantial mass, pop into existence out of absolutely nothing at all, and subsequently disappear into absolutely nothing at all.
DeleteNonsense.
And a very deep seated, pervasive, and stubborn sort of nonsense. So, I don't mean to single you out, I mean, we have physicists and their sycophants spouting this nonsense all over the place.
Absolutely nothing at all is the only sort of nothing there is. All the loose talk about various nothings from equivocating charlatans like Krauss will not change that simple fact.
I am still waiting for the link to a scientific measurement of a spontaneous and persistent increase in mass/energy of a closed system.
There would be your something from nothing.
It does truly baffle me as to why so many people are so heavily invested in labeling all manner of somethings as nothing. Why? What is to be gained by this pedestrian error? Money? Yes, for the woo mongers this nonsense is profitable, so I can understand that motivation for dishonesty. But why is the average person so invested in denial of the obvious and simple fact that there is only one sort of nothing, which is zero, absolutely nothing at all, no dimensions, time, space, vacuum, false vacuum, wave function or function of any sort, no physical realization of any sort.
Nothing.
Read the damn article.
DeleteIt's one thing to debate whether nothing is really something other than nothing. But you are now insisting that the article I cited doesn't say what it says. So you are not merely lacking in understanding. You are lacking in something more fundamental than that. It's not worth my time.
"Zero is not described by a function of any sort, much less a wave function. Zero does not expand. Zero does not occupy space. Zero is not a physical reality."
ReplyDeleteI take a number, say, 706. Now tell me that the zero contained in the number represents no significant value, is not descriptive of any sort of functionality; tell me that it does not occupy a particular place or space [either in its ordinality or the cardinality of its position in the totality of the number 706] or that it doesn't represent a specific reality, let alone a physical one, relative to that number.
Further insights into Luke Barnes' apologetical leanings, SEE HERE and AND HERE.
It seems the kind of 'nothing' Barnes subscribes to is the theo-philosophical void. And indeed if anything, it is this conception of nothing that is both irreconcilably and irretrievably problematic in nature and the definition of which is the most nonsensical and the one most likely not to represent reality. So, if it is a choice between Krauss's perspective or Barnes', it is Barnes' unquestionably theo-soaked rendition that is the outlier in this debate.
"I take a number, say, 706. Now tell me that the zero contained in the number represents no significant value"
Delete706d = 2C2h
Sorry papa, you have a few things to learn about numbers.
Zero is not itself a thing, it is the absence of all things.
Zero by itself does not represent a physical thing, it represents the absence of all physical things.
Zero, as part of a set of symbolic representations for counting, is part of an abstract method of manipulating mathematical concepts.
" Luke Barnes'"
You entirely missed the point about citing one apologist versus another. Barnes and Krauss each have their own sort of woo, like a Christian and a Muslim. Each may be very good at pointing out the error in the other. I suggest you avail yourself of such reservoirs of skeptical analysis.
"if it is a choice between Krauss's perspective or Barnes'"
It isn't. There is only one sort of nothing, which is zero, absolutely nothing at all, no physical thing of any sort, no existence of any kind, nothing for a function of any kind to describe, an utter lack of all physical realization whatsoever.
"There is only one sort of nothing, which is zero, absolutely nothing at all, no physical thing of any sort, no existence of any kind, nothing for a function of any kind to describe, an utter lack of all physical realization whatsoever."
DeleteYou clearly either didn't read or understand the substance of my last paragraph. Your form of 'nothing' is a philosophical contrivance of no conceptual utility, value or relevance whatsoever in describing that which is contained within this universe.
"There is only one sort of nothing, which is zero, absolutely nothing at all, no physical thing of any sort, no existence of any kind, nothing for a function of any kind to describe, an utter lack of all physical realization whatsoever."
DeleteYou clearly either didn't read or understand the substance of my last paragraph. Your form of 'nothing' is a philosophical contrivance of no conceptual utility, value or relevance whatsoever in describing that which is contained within this universe.
"Your form of 'nothing' is a philosophical contrivance of no conceptual utility, value or relevance whatsoever in describing that which is contained within this universe"
DeleteYou are getting close! Indeed, nothing is a concept that has no physical realization because it is inherently not something.
You are quite correct in saying that "nothing" does not describe anything contained within this universe, since everything contained within this universe is something.
Your observations are the very reasons nobody should assert a "nothing" as a description of anything in this universe.
Thank you.
However, I must temper my thanks by stating you are in error that there is no conceptual utility in "nothing". Zero has great conceptual utility in our daily lives, and the concept of nothing as an antecedent to the origin of existence has been at the core of this great riddle for millennia.
Stardusty,
ReplyDeleteI fear that you have entirely missed the point of my post.
The fact is that I don't know whether something comes from nothing, and you don't either. But you stand on your high horse and insist that it can't be.
Maybe there's another explanation. Maybe there's an extra-dimensional reality that we can't perceive, and that reality holds the causes and the substance of things that pop into existence in our world. That's a reasonable thing to suppose. But the fact remains that we don't know. And in particular, you don't know. I'm only asking you to consider a broader range of possibilities than your philosophical view allows at this time.
"The fact is that I don't know whether something comes from nothing, and you don't either. But you stand on your high horse and insist that it can't be."
DeleteIt has never been scientifically observed, it is not a part of any scientific theory, and it is irrational.
On the other hand, an infinite regression of time is also irrational.
So clearly, to state absolutely what cannot be would be premature.
"Maybe there's another explanation. Maybe there's an extra-dimensional reality that we can't perceive,"
Fine, but that would be something.
"and that reality holds the causes and the substance of things that pop into existence in our world. That's a reasonable thing to suppose"
Ok, suppose that if you wish, but you are supposing something, not nothing.
" And in particular, you don't know"
Indeed! I make no claim to be the one in a hundred billion to have solved this ancient riddle.
" I'm only asking you to consider a broader range of possibilities than your philosophical view allows at this time."
I am open to speculations about additional dimensions, unknown structures, hidden variables, or whatever. I am not open to blatant equivocations for profit.