Discussion How can something come from nothing?

[eclipse]

Personally, I think we should be careful with the very concept of "nothing", just as with other concepts like "before" and "after". What do they actually mean, and more importantly, does the reality of the universe really reflect these notions in our minds? We throw terms like those around as if they were universal truths but as always, I think they are crude concepts to find our way around in our natural environment.

The way our brain works is that it picks up stimuli, filters and interprets them and then it creates an internal image simplified as much as possible so that we can make decisions and survive using as little energy as possible - brainpower consumes a lot of energy, it needs to work in an efficient way. We see a tasty piece of cheese cake when the actual information coming to our eyes is a flurry of millions (or however many) of electromagnetic waves, and then it is compared to past experiences. It would be impossible to process that information consciously, so instead the decision-making part in our brain just gets the information "tasty cheese cake", so it can easily act on that.

It feels like I'm rambling, but I think concepts like "nothing", "before", "after" etc. are oversimplified concepts just like "cheese cake" created to find our way around. Special relativity already makes a mess of our understanding of time and it's really hard to wrap our head around that. With general relativity, particle physics, quantum mechanics, string theory etc. it only gets worse. An understanding of that has been irrelevant throughout evolution, so our conscious mind has a really hard time coming to grips with it.

Or take "acceleration", everyone has an intuitive understanding of what that means. In Newtonian physics, gravity accelerates us towards the ground and that is why we feel weight. Easy enough. But from what I read, in general relativity it would be more accurate to say that we aren't accelerated downwards, but the ground is accelerating upwards in relation to spacetime, pushed outward by the massive pressure inside the planet. That is extremely counter-intuitive and I think it's a fine example of the disparity between the concepts that exist in our head and how the universe seems to actually behave.

Another example: "water finds its level". That is an outrageous oversimplification of the physics involved, and it even suggests some sort of agency in the sense that "water" "seeks" and "finds" its "level". It's just one that we can easily understand to predict what happens in a way our brain can process.

Speaking of water and coming back to "how can something come from nothing": imagine our plane of existence being the surface of a lake and let's just say there was no wind or anything, not the slightest movement on this surface. It would probably look like "nothing" to us. Now there's some movement below the surface - completely invisible to us - and little waves appear and we'd wonder how the hell that happened, how something could come from nothing.

Am I implying that there is actually "something" below the "nothing"? I'm not sure actually. I think the main point I'm trying to make is: what is "nothing"? What is this "before" when talking about the big bang? Are we asking anthropocentric questions that don't make sense in the universe?

And of course that's before asking if we can find out what was before the big bang if we're still struggling to find out what's going on right now.

 

[Beachedwhale]

I replied to your previous thread explaining why simulation theory likely isn't true, and how we already see examples in quantum physics of "something coming from nothing". Anyway, here's my personal theory on what happened before the big bang. First, it's helpful to understand 4 quick observations any theory must be consistent with:

First, we know that energy and mass can interconvert, that's what Einstein's E=mc^2 demonstrates. Before the big bang, there was no mass, just a ton of energy. Law of entropy states that energy will trend toward a more chaotic state, causing the big bang explosion and mass spreading out.

Second, there is actual evidence that there likely were MULTIPLE big bangs. The physics is complicated, but basically Einstein's Cosmological Constant seems smaller than it should be given the current BB theory. To be consistent, there must be finite energy, and more than we know: perhaps many, repeating big bangs. Think of fireworks in the universe.

Third, BBT implies all matter comes from a single, 1-D point. We experience the world in 3-D. Huh? Why? Why did it expand in 3-D and not anything else? String theory tells us there's most likely 11 dimensions. Huh?! How can we access those other dimensions? Why are we trapped in this 3-D universe? To be clear, extra dimensions does not necessarily mean more infinite space. Likely, it is circular space. Think of a toilet paper roll: an ant can walk forward from one circlular end to the other, or turn left to walk along the circle to reach back where it started. This is an example of 2-D space where 1 dimension is circular. Since we don't see 11-D on a regular basis, physicists guess the other dimensions are circular like this. Again, simplifying a lot here.

Fourth, time and space appear to be related. We're still not sure what the relationship is.

So, we've established that mass and energy are related, and time and space are related. Here's the theory: in the same way mass converts into energy, perhaps time converts into space. Maybe, there is finite "time" and "space" in the same way that there is finite "energy" and "mass". So at some point, when space expands enough, time stops. Then, space retracts, and time goes the other way. When space contracts completely into a single point, it expands/"bangs" and time moves forwards again. So basically, we're in a time loop, I personally think. Think of the entropy law reversing itself over and over. There's a name for this theory, cyclic big bang theory. There are pretty visuals about it, too, if you search for it. Among those who believe this theory, it's disputed whether the same exact universe is unfolded after each big bang/time loop.

A good reason to suspect cyclic nature here is because we know there's likely circular spatial dimensions out there (observation #3).

Philosophically, the big two questions are "when did space begin" and "where did time come from". Notice how time ("when") and space ("where") sneak into these questions about each other? We could be asking a loaded question. My 2 cents.

So everything repeats forever?

 

[ClownMe]

My blunt assessment is that there is nothing to begin with for any kind of species that has ever existed, however each species as a collective attempts to make something out of the nothing to try and nullify that nothing. Our societies, relationships and even our families are literally nothing in disguise to look like something, there's no real fabric to it whatsoever when you break it down.

That's just my two cents though.

 

[Donk]

quantum physics taught us that a particle, the basic building block of life, can be a wave or a particle at the same time right? It can be in this duality state until we pay attention to it. So isn't it possible for the universe to have been in two states simultaneoustly? nothingness and singlarity? maybe the universe became conscious of itself which then set off the big bang event. fuck the universe for creating this piece of shit meat suit.

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

Maybe we are a microorganism in a huge 11-dimensional giant or something. Real answer: we can't know and I just want to die.

 

[Donk]

a huge 11-dimensional giant or something.

I read that the Kardashins has been studying this phenomenom extensively.

 

[StateOfMind]

The same way something can go to nothing.

 

[Donk]

The same way something can go to nothing.

energy cannot be destroyed. it can only change form.

 

[StateOfMind]

energy cannot be destroyed. it can only change form.

What about dark energy, dark matter and black holes?

 

[WornOutLife]

What about dark energy, dark matter and black holes?

I've started reading and watching videos about this tuff now. So weird! I'm just more confused than before lol.

 

[9BBN]

So everything repeats forever?

I think it's most likely the case.

What about dark energy, dark matter and black holes?

This is actually really on point. If mass can be lost via black holes, then it's common sense to expect there's probably a reasonable, non-supernatural explanation for how mass can be born.

 

[DeadButDreaming]

I believe matter is eternal, but I've been wrong about so much shit in the past that it wouldn't surprise me if I were wrong about this too.

 

[Symbiote]

I read that the Kardashins has been studying this phenomenom extensively.

I don't think Kim Kardashians ass is a portal to another dimension, I don't care how big or glorious it is....that's what you meant right?

 

[Beachedwhale]

I think it's most likely the case.

This is actually really on point. If mass can be lost via black holes, then it's common sense to expect there's probably a reasonable, non-supernatural explanation for how mass can be born.

So everyone lives their lives repeatedly for eternity? I refuse to believe it's as shit as that

 

[alown]

My existential crisis is still here so, let's start with another thread today.
Yesterday, I asked you HERE if we all could actually be the same person. Your answers were awe-inspiring and another question popped up:

How can something come from nothing?

Well, this is practically impossible to answer because how can we talk about the nothingness is there's just nothing in it?

According to Richard Dawkins, in the future, science might give us the answer. For instance, we already know thanks to Charles Darwin that billions of year of evolution made us exist here. Could it possible that in some decades we have an answer for what was before the big bang?

Religious people don't consider this question an issue because they just believe that "God" created everything. If you asked them who created that omnipotent being they'll just said that "no one created God because he/she/it is everything and is beyond time and space".

Here's a crazy fact:

Some scientist claim that it is possible for something to come from nothing because nothing actually has some stuff in it, it seems. There's some kind of eternal energy which was always there so, religion and some scientist actually have a similar theory! It could be God or simply something which doesn't follow the laws of physics in this universe and our minds can't understand yet.

However, as far as we know, there's gotta be something for something to exist. It's an infinite cycle and it's frustrating because we'll never be able to know the answer. Or maybe we will once we die? Is there actually a God? Are we in a simulation? Is it just...eternal nothingness and no answers?

Yesterday, a member told me we're like Gods for a butterfly with such a small brain which just can't grasp the concept of life, universe, etc. Maybe we're insects to as regards the universe and meaning of life? Is there just...NO WAY OF UNDERSTANDING ANYTHING? No matter how much more we evolve?


Too many questions but no real answers.

What do you think? How can something come from nothing?

I especially think that our minds cannot conceive this for the moment and will never be able to conceive and understand it.

the human is limited, as I told you in the other thread, we are not what we are here in the form of our earthly bodies.

Our brain is limited in matter by being human, but our souls already have the answers where they are now, since they are not in our earthly body.

 

[Makko]

What about dark energy, dark matter and black holes?

My favorite fantasy suicide method is jumping into a black hole. I've read that theoretically, reality splits in two when you hit the event horizon, so even though you'd be destroyed on the outside of the black hole, you'd still exist inside. It was some pretty surreal technobabble and I liked it.

 

[esoterispeec]

Good question. And we're not just something we're complex sentient organisms

 

[Bauhaus]

'Nothing' is a non-existent word cos when you come up with a word you have to define it and you'll be talking about something, so 'nothing' is meaningless.

I find it curious people are always wondering about a beginning, I mean it doesn't make remotely sense that Reality would start suddenly.
It's black or white, either there's existence or not.
As I see it Reality has always been there, it's infinite in time and space, or rather, time and space don't exist and it's only when there's a big bang that both a universe with time, space, matter and energy are created. But outside the boundaries of this universe time & space are meaningless.
And in an infinite Reality it would be silly if there's just one tiny big bang, you would expect an infinite number of big bangs so the existence of a multiversum is a possibility.
Just my 2.5 cents. :)

 

[TooConscious]

I felt an insane 'something' when I realized that all magic, paranormal, quantum physics are NOTHING OF ANYTHING when I'd already accepted the most bizarre thing that there is something is instead of nothing. By the time I was 10 before anything.

 

[Mendex]

Usually, this problems are not an issue who belongs to the scientific discipline like physics. Because terms like "Something" or "Nothingness" are not factual concepts who emphasizes in facts. they are pure concepts who belong to field of metaphysics.

Perhaps, metaphysical questions ought to ask as those.
-Why is something rather than nothing? (This is a better question)
-What is common in every entity who make this an entity? (Entity: a thing with distinct and independent existence)
-What is the relationship between mind and body? (If body is material, And mind in immaterial. Why they have a relationship?)
-Did we have free will?
-Are good and evil real things?
And so on, and on.

What all this question have in common, that they are purely conceptual and not factual as in a field like physics.
And asking "How can something come from nothingness?" is a conceptual question.
As well as you may ask "Why I'm something rather than nothing?" or "How I come from nothingness
However, there a solution to all this questions conceptual (Hard to believe, isn't?).
Who solve all this question was a Philosopher called Ludwig Wittgenstein.
He propose that metaphysical problems have a linguistic makeup who made the problem itself.
Everything start on his "Tractatus logico-philosophicus"

Spoiler: Statements

0.1 The world is all that is the case.
1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts. For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and
1.12 also whatever is not the case. The facts in logical space are the world.
1.13 The world divides into facts.
1.2 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains the same.

those dogmatic statements, Is how the Tractatus start as journey to make clear the nature of all problems.
And the solution of this nature is...

Spoiler

They are a semantic confusion, You are making statements beyond your language. Therefore the limits of your language are the limits of your world. We can't express what is beyond meaning. For consequence we have this "confusions". We are breaking our heads against the wall of our own language. What we should do is to "climb" this wall with a ladder and kick the ladder back without looking backwards

 

[WornOutLife]

Usually, this problems are not an issue who belongs to the scientific discipline like physics. Because terms like "Something" or "Nothingness" are not factual concepts who emphasizes in facts. they are pure concepts who belong to field of metaphysics.

OMG, this sounds amazing.
I'm so confused now lol

 

[GarageKarate07]

There is a biologist (I didnt look for a video link) who has found at the end of all the projects he has been on that evolution is COMPLETLY false. I will look for a video or text link if I remember. He says that we have put everything we can into small controlled environments and can not great single cells or even proteins. What ever the force that starts this activity is it is not time or cosmic dust. Some thing else is going on here. Life seems only to come from creation within this place where life is able to function. Life starts from a place we can't replicate and this shouldn't be possible.

Another man says that when we clean a radioactive core room, there should be no life in this type of environment. In this case the room is made sterile. Then after a time bacteria form on the surfaces again and it needs to be cleaned. The life is coming from literraly nowhere. It should not be so.

 

[profoundexperience]

How can something come from nothing?

"Something" possibly CAN come from "nothing"* (at least theoretically)**.

I.e., it may be possible to make a whole universe with zero net energy (or matter)... "nothing" input. This can be possible even if the universe is infinite.

Such a universe would have to have a very specific, overall spacetime geometry = "flat" rather than "open" or "closed". Scientific measurements strongly point to a finding that our our universe is indeed "flat" (as well as we're able to measure it). More information on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

And here's an entertaining lecture that ultimately builds-up to explaining this**: The introductions prior to the main lecture go on until ~12:45...


* I agree with multiple other posters that we need to be very careful with the terms "something" and "nothing". Although, the common-sense use of these words works well for everyday, human activities... it's not at all the same thing when we're talking about the topics you're really interested in. For example, from the very small perspective of quantum mechanics... everything seems to "exist" as a "probability function(s)" (at least that's one valid way of understanding it)... so the terms "something" and "nothing" simply do not seem to apply: It's like everything is "partly something" AND "partly nothing" at the same time.

** This concept is not without its critics (though Harvard University thought enough of it to host the lecture)... and we currently lack a lot of evidence to prove the idea. Also, a main proponent of this idea (and the presenter in the video I attached) was demoted from a prestigious position at Arizona State University, due to sexual misconduct allegations.

 

[Bauhaus]

* I agree with multiple other posters that we need to be very careful with the terms "something" and "nothing". Although, the common-sense use of these words works well for everyday, human activities... it's not at all the same thing when we're talking about the topics you're really interested in. For example, from the very small perspective of quantum mechanics... everything seems to "exist" as a "probability function(s)" (at least that's one valid way of understanding it)... so the terms "something" and "nothing" simply do not seem to apply: It's like everything is "partly something" AND "partly nothing" at the same time.

I would be careful with applying quantumphysics to our 'macro universe', the laws that dictate at the quantum level don't work to explain Reality.
Emergence proves that you can't use reductionism to explain Reality.
It's like Reality consists of several layers where with every layer the total is more than the sum of the 'lower' levels.
There's weak emergence and strong emergence, the former can be easily explained unlike the latter.
Examples of weak emergence are warmth and humidity: an atom isn't 'hot', it's only when there are millions of trilling atoms that heat is created. Just like a water molecule isn't wet and only when there's many water molecules that the property 'humidity' appears.
Some time ago a Dutch physisist claimed that gravity isn't a force but is also a form of emergence which would explain why gravity isn't detectable within the atom.
Consciousness otoh is a form of strong emergence, after all it doesn't make sense why a network of neurons would suddenly give rise to consciousness.

 

[profoundexperience]

I would be careful with applying quantumphysics to our 'macro universe',

Agreed.

Although, the truth is we just don't know to what extent known quantum principles... may be active in macro contexts.

I was more trying to caution against the everyday use of mental concepts such as "something" and "nothing"... being "foregone conclusions" (assumptions we can use without question)...

Because that absolute duality (the way we generally think of "something" and "nothing") may not be the case, in many, various contexts.

it doesn't make sense why a network of neurons would suddenly give rise to consciousness.

Here I have to disagree... Although consciousness seems "mysterious", I think it may be possible to be fully explained by computational principles alone: It all can be broken-down into inputs, processing, and outputs... just like any other computer program.

Point a video camera at a live-view of a TV monitoring the camera... and you get all kinds of strange effects (due to the feedback-loop between the camera and the screen). But, these effects are completely understandable and mechanical. The mystery of consciousness may be due to very similar effects occurring in computation. Although the "effects" we "experience" may seem strange, they may be completely mechanical nonetheless.

Just because we comprise [a part of] the program and are "running" on the system (and therefore have a unique, reflective perspective thereof)... doesn't mean our consciousness isn't 100% the result of computation.

As you say, "emergence".

 

[death137]

My belief is that the first thing to ever exist came from nothing. How? I've no idea. My mind is shocked when I think about it but I think its the only logical explanation.

 

[Bauhaus]

Although consciousness seems "mysterious", I think it may be possible to be fully explained by computational principles alone: It all can be broken-down into inputs, processing, and outputs... just like any other computer program.

And you're stuck again in reductionist thinking.... you can not reduce your brain to neurons which simply fire/don't fire impulses, like ones and zeroes in a computer. Consciousness is likely the result of your brain as a whole.
And can you be sure that consciousness can be programmed ?
How do you know it's the real deal and not just a simulation ?

Or take emotions i.e. which are also a form of emergence.
I've yet have to hear the first person who can explain how you program an emotion. You can't, it's impossible.

 

[profoundexperience]

I'm not a Christian, but they sing...

Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost,

As it was in the beginning,
Is now, and ever shall be,
World without end... a-men, a-ah-men.​

My belief is that the first thing to ever exist came from nothing. How? I've no idea.

If time can stretch (infinitely) into the future...? Why can't it also... "stretch infinitely" into the past? (Or something along those lines...?)

That way there is no need for a "first exister" ("first mover").

Why not? Merely lack of imagination.

 

[Quiet Desperation]

I agree with your assessment about religion and share your curiousity about our origins, but I don't share the confidence that many seem to have in the field of theoretical physics. I think that due to all the scientific progress we've made in making sense of how things work, many of us have come to expect that we can use science to find the answer to anything we can imagine.

Many of the experiments taking place to support these hypotheses, for example dark matter, quantum entanglement, string theory, the many-worlds theory, and similar ideas are pushing up against boundaries that we simply haven't overcome yet. In many cases we are measuring phenomena so close to the edge of our ability to detect or confirm them as to remain controversial in scientific circles. To me, using such theories to draw firm conclusions about our place in the universe or how it came to be is premature.

I'm not saying that these ideas are false or should be considered to be fiction on the magnitude of religion. I think that science is the only hope we have to continue learning, and that we must continue to push its boundaries for the betterment of humanity and to help us all get just a little closer to the big answers you're looking for. However, I think in many cases we must simply admit our present ignorance while we continue to learn. Those who pretend to have the answers when there are no firm data rarely provide much value in my experience.

The more settled science such as the Big Bang Theory I find much less controversial, but for some perspective, that theory was originally proposed only 94 and confirmed by observation of red shift 92 years ago, in comparison to the theorized age of our species on the order of millions of years and the theoretical age of the universe of 13.7 billion years. The more recent 1998 observation that distant supernovae were moving away from Earth at an accelerating rate instead of a decelerating one to my knowledge still remains completely unexplained. We are infants crawling in the darkness, not the masters of our domain that we wish to believe we are. We're so shortsighted and selfish that it's highly likely we will destroy our own planet, and ourselves with it, before we can definitively answer questions about how it came to be. While large parts of society are strenuously arguing against the right for individual suicide, we all continue inevitably towards our collective suicide as a species.

To more directly address your question "how can something come from nothing?", my answer is I'm not at all confident that it can, that it did, or that we will ever be able to prove either way. The available evidence about what took place 13.7 billion years ago is necessarily limited, and all of our theories are just that - theories.

 

[profoundexperience]

And you're stuck again in reductionist thinking....

Just calling an argument "reductionist" — doesn't make it wrong...

Analyzing and describing complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or fundamental constituents (reductionism) has gotten science (and us) tremendous progress.

And vice-versa, I'd caution against "expansionism" (especially without evidence!). I can imagine ALL MANOR of bigger, alternative explanations for phenomena... but without any evidence (for or against)... any of them could be true.

you can not reduce your brain to neurons which simply fire/don't fire impulses

Yes you can!

Why? Open it up and that's exactly what we find! AND, we know the structures we find, at least hypothetically, can explain the function/behavior/outputs we see from it.

We have "dual confirmation" from both the "experimental" and "theoretical" sides.

Sure, there could be another explanation... but as of yet, none whatsoever with such strong supporting evidence.

Consciousness is likely the result of your brain as a whole.

I agree: all the components make-up the brain as a whole.

And can you be sure that consciousness can be programmed ?

We don't have the words for "a program without a programer".

It's, as you say, an emergent phenomenon... an " emergent program(s)".

How do you know it's the real deal and not just a simulation ?

That theory is theoretically compelling. I've visited one on NASA's supercomputing facilitates and quite agree with Nick Bostrom's premises.

So, in this case we have some theoretical ideas... but as of yet no/little experimental data.

BUT, even if true, we could saw-open your skull right now and start "mucking around" with even the smallest components... and very quickly have profound effects on your consciousness:

Just because we're in a simulation, doesn't negate — in fact it heartily reinforces — that our brains/minds/consciousness are LITERALLY "computations/programs".

I've yet have to hear the first person who can explain how you program an emotion. You can't, it's impossible.

I disagree: What we're currently missing is simply a "user interface". I understand that Elon Musk has a company working on just that.

Will it very primitive and indirect at first? Yes. Can we ever reach a level of "absolute control"? Maybe not.

But none of what we've said so far has given any more weight to an alternative explanation.

*****

In many cases we are measuring phenomena so close to the edge of our ability to detect or confirm them as to remain controversial in scientific circles. ... premature.

Agreed.

And in science, that's always the case, isn't it? We do need time for any new theory to "mature".

I think that science is the only hope we have to continue learning, ... However, ... we must ... admit our present ignorance ...

We are infants crawling in the darkness, not the masters of our domain that we wish to believe we are.

True.

We're so shortsighted and selfish that it's highly likely we will destroy our own planet, and ourselves with it, before we can definitively answer questions about how it came to be.

Unfortunately... or fortunately?? (Fundamentally, I don't believe any of the suffering here is "worth it".)

To more directly address your question "how can something come from nothing?", my answer is I'm not at all confident that it can, that it did, or that we will ever be able to prove either way. The available evidence about what took place 13.7 billion years ago is necessarily limited, and all of our theories are just that - theories.

Amen.