John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a
confusion. I can only repeat what I said before:
'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of "a
universe from nothing" is absurd.' Either you have pre-existing laws and
substrate -- which is not 'nothing' -- or the universe just "pops"
spontaneously, and laws, etc, are just descriptions of observed
regularities in whatever has "popped". You don't have many other options.
Bruce
John Ross wrote:
Bruce,
No one can logically doubt the following: "BEFORE THERE WAS ANYTHING THERE WAS
NOTHING"
Let's start with that and explain how we now live in a universe with 100 to 400 billion galaxies.
You propose a "background space-time". Where did this background space-time come from?
Who created that thing. Can "space-time" be created from nothing? If it can, don't you
end up with nothing and time? How does that get you a universe?
According to my thinking, empty space is nothing.
Here is GOOGLES definition of time:
noun
1.the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the
past, present, and future regarded as a whole.
2.a point of time as measured in hours and minutes past midnight or
noon.
3.time as allotted, available, or used.
4.an instance of something happening or being done; an occasion.
5.(following a number) expressing multiplication.
6.the rhythmic pattern of a piece of music, as expressed by a time
signature.
I have shown how to build a universe from point particles, each with a charge
of plus e and minus e. You have admit if you add minus e to plus e, you get
zero. Is anyone aware of any other explanation for how our Universe could
evolve from nothing?
John R
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Kellett
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 4:27 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential
Liz, I think you are generally correct in what you write below. Current writing by
cosmologists etc on "getting a universe from nothing" assume the prior
existence of at least a background space-time. More usually, this is assumed to be the
vacuum of quantum field theory. So there is a clear assumption that a framework, and a
set of laws, are logically prior to the coming into existence of the universe.
This makes sense, because if you want to give an orderly account of the origin
of the universe, you must give an account in terms of laws -- so these are
logically prior. Basic quantum mechanics, or quantum field theory is usually
assumed to govern this creation. In addition, if you have some background
space-time then you need laws that describe the nature and behaviour of this
substrate. General relativity is usually assumed, at least a semi-classical
version of GR.
My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of "a universe from nothing" is absurd. People who don't want to assume that the universe just "pops" out of nowhere, complete with laws, generally assume a previously existing universe of some sort that spawns daughter universes in some manner. This, of course, does not answer ultimate questions of origins, but if you want to work within current understanding of the LOP, then you have little choice. The "popping"
scenario essentially leaves origins unexplainable.
Bruce
LizR wrote:
Now that we've sorted out the acronyms, I'd appreciate a response to the
points I made - see below.
Empty space _is _the same as nothing.
I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions
"why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe go
to the bother of existing?" "What breathes fire into the equations?" etc
are asking why /anything/ exists. That includes empty space.
I don’t understand your comment, “It presupposes the laws of
physics.” I don’t think empty space presupposes the laws of physics
and I don’t think “nothing” presupposes the laws of physics. In my
mind neither one presupposes anything.
Maybe if the empty space does nothing, forever, that might be true. (At
least we wouldn't exist to ask questions about whether it's true or
not.) But if anything arises from the empty space, then the LOP must
govern what appears. Why should tronnies appear rather than, say,
quarks? The answer, by definition, is the laws of physics.
Hence, if your description of the origin of the universe is correct, the
question "why is there something rather than nothing?" can be amended to
"why should empty space plus the laws of physics exist?"
This leaves open the question of why the LOP are the way they are,
rather than anything else they could logically have been.
Generally, attempts to answer this have taken two forms. One is to show
that the LOP are unique, and logically necessary - there is some
underlying reason they could only be the way we observe them to be.
The other is to admit that they could have been different, and perhaps
are in other universes - in this view the required explanation is not an
answer to "why do these particular laws of physics?" but "why do all
these different laws of physics exist?" This assumes that some more
general logical necessity needs to be invoked to explain all possible
LOP, and then anthropic selection can be invoked to explain why we find
them to be the way we do in our particular universe.
PS
TOE=Theory of Everything, IMO=In my opinion (be it ever so humble). I
often type in a hurry, so having generally accepted acronyms available
can come in handy.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
