• PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    If a complete lack of anything were the case, then there would not be anything; however, there is something and so a lack of anything could not have been the case, and so that notion is out and done with. Nothing’ cannot even be meant, much less have any properties or be productive, and so even any notion of it is forever squashed.

    So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries.

    The Something cannot be still and unmoving, for then naught could have become as the temporary happenings that we take as something. ‘The impossible Stillness’ thus gains single quote marks, akin to its relative of ‘Nothing’, neither one able to be.

    So, the Permanent Something of Necessity as the only true and lasting real thing can only form the temporaries through various arrangements of itself in such a way that it ever remains as itself. It has to do this because it cannot be still and is thus energetic and so it has motion within it.

    Its nature has to be that the Something is the simplest state of being, as partless, for it would not be Fundamental as the only cause it if were composed of parts whose fundamentality preceded its own. It also has to be continuous, because it is both unbreakable and unmakeable, not to mention again that it cannot have spacers of the nonexistent ‘Nothingness’ in it. The Something is thus an Existent that cannot not be, and that is that!

    So, then, the lesser, which in this case is the least, gives rise to the elementaries, the composites, and the complex, as the temporary universe, which from our point of view as one of the temporaries might might call it to be ‘greater’ in the sense that the temporary is more interesting than the simple base alone, much grander in its splendor of multiplicity, even.

    The transcendental notion of the lesser having to come from a greater can now be totally thrown out, as another Impossible, and, besides, the notion leads to an infinite regress. That template is dead. It is also that not anything composite can be Fundamental, not even tiny proton, much less anything more composite or even infinitely complex, such as a Great Mind, begging the ‘question’ that didn’t even have to be begged.

    So, we have the Truth, but out of curiosity as well as for the ultimate satisfaction from the Proof of confirmation, we look for the physical support to the philosophy of logic in the physics of science.

    The quantum vacuum with is overall quantum field fits the bill to a T: the rather persisting elementaries form from excitations at the stable rungs of energy quanta in the quantum field. The elementaries don’t get quantized; they are the quanta. We know the rest of the story. Quantum Field Theory (QFT) gave us all of physics.

    Universes may come and go, but the Permanent Existent ever remains, and anything can become of it.
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k
    John (to his nephew Timmy): I have something for you.
    Timmy: Thanks a ton uncle John! I'm so very happy!
    Jack (to Timmy): That's nothing! Wait till ya see what I got for you!
    Timmy: Yaay!
  • Roger
    17
    Why is that something that must be/quantum field there? While it's possible there's no explanation possible, I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". As you said, if this supposed "nothing” before the "something" was truly the lack of all existent entities, there would be no mechanism present to change, or transform, this “nothingness” into the “something” that is here now. But, because we can see that “something” is here now, the only possible choice if we start with "nothing" is that the supposed “nothing” we were thinking of was not in fact the lack of all existent entities, or absolute “nothing” but was in fact a "something".  Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.  That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to your point of "something" always having been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something".

     How can "nothing" be a "something"?  I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping that ties stuff together into a unit whole and that in so doing defines what is contained within that unit whole. This idea of a unit whole or a unity as being related to why things exist isn't new. Next,
    when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.

    Two important points are first that it's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Second is that while the words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something" in the above imply a temporal change, time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".
  • Gnomon
    1.9k
    Why is that something that must be/quantum field there? While it's possible there's no explanation possible, I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something".Roger
    Quantum Field theory has been adopted as a metaphor for that which is not Real, but merely Potential, or logically Possible. The mathematical "points" in the field are described euphemistically as "Virtual" particles. In calculations, they are treated as-if real, even though they are only potential : not yet realized. The "nothing" that preceded the Big Bang Birth of our world may be compared to the un-real Statistical Probability of a mathematical Field. The field is characterized by Logic, but not Matter. :smile:

    Are virtual particles Real ? :
    Compared to actual particles — It is not. "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
    Note -- In QT, some external "excitation" or "perturbation", such as a Measurement or Choice triggers the transformation from Virtual to Actual, or Potential (hidden ; implicit) to Explicit.

    Virtual :
    (Computing) not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.
    ___Oxford
  • Roger
    17
    But I think the question remains. Why is quantum field theory, logic or statistical probabilities there? If we say the laws of math, logic and physics exist always in some sort of Platonic realm, where is this realm and why is it there instead of nothing.
  • Banno
    15.1k
    however, there is something and so a lack of anything could not have been the case,PoeticUniverse

    That should have been "there is something and so a lack of anything could not be the case". Introducing the past tense confuses the issue by introducing time.

    It's not legitimate to jump from "there is something now" to "there has always been something".
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    The mathematical "points" in the field are described euphemistically as "Virtual" particles.Gnomon

    The virtual particles are not points but are the fractional quanta that aren't at a stable energy quanta rung and so they quickly go away (as per being 'particles'), unable to form elementary particles.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    "Virtual" particles. In calculations, they are treated as-if real, even though they are only potential : not yet realized.Gnomon

    They as real although brief make for the Casmir effect.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"?Roger

    Can't really have 'it'; the closest one might put 'it' is that 'it' is a nonexistent absolute, perhaps to employ it as a bound that cannot be gotten to, which one might also do for chock full, in which there could be no movement, this being another boundary to the forbidden, as another nonexistent absolute. Like Parmenides, I'm ruling out 'Nothing' completely.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    If we say the laws of math, logic and physics exist always in some sort of Platonic realm, where is this realm and why is it there instead of nothing.Roger

    This is what Max Tegmark goes for, but it's hard to fathom. The laws would have to be concurrent in the Mandatory Existent.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    Note -- In QT, some external "excitation" or "perturbation", such as a Measurement or Choice triggers the transformation from Virtual to Actual, or Potential (hidden ; implicit) to Explicit.Gnomon

    No, the virtuals can't become particles; they don't have the full quanta. Measurement is about determining the location of a spread out elementary particle smear as best one can do, given that it's approximate, and so a probability of its whereabouts comes forth. Best not to think of 'particles' as particles, like pinpoints, because they aren't; they are ever lumps in fields.

    An aside, as a speculation, would be that if there is inflation then perhaps it will separate virtual particles faster than they can recombine.
  • Roger
    17
    In using "it" to refer to "nothing", I don't think it's reifying "nothing" just by talking about it because the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself are two different things. In order to talk about "nothing" itself, whether or not it exists, we have to refer to it somehow. But because the mind's conception of "nothing" and therefore our talking about "nothing" is not the same as "nothing" itself, just talking about "nothing" as an it doesn't reify it. What I'm trying to do is to imagine getting rid of everything in the universe and then trying to extrapolate what would be there if we could also get rid of the mind.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    What I'm trying to do is to imagine getting rid of everything in the universe and then trying to extrapolate what would be there if we could also get rid of the mind.Roger

    Only the temporary forms can be gotten rid of, as forms, such as the universe that Banged out, but the Permanent has to remain, as the source of the Bang, and of course the temporaries here are ever the Permanent's rearrangements, not anything else different, but it would be those rearrangements that one imagines getting rid of.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    That should have been "there is something and so a lack of anything could not be the case". Introducing the past tense confuses the issue by introducing time.

    It's not legitimate to jump from "there is something now" to "there has always been something".
    Banno

    Actually, it was already sufficient to state that existence has no alternative, given that nonexistence cannot have being, so I didn't need to reify 'Nothing' as a 'case', for a case is a fact. Consider it gone. There is Something because it is mandatory as it has no opposite.
  • Gnomon
    1.9k
    ↪Gnomon
    But I think the question remains. Why is quantum field theory, logic or statistical probabilities there? If we say the laws of math, logic and physics exist always in some sort of Platonic realm, where is this realm and why is it there instead of nothing.
    Roger
    One answer to such existential ontological questions is that, if anything exists now, something must have always existed. For Realists that bottomless Tower of Turtles is called the "Multiverse", more of the same forever. But a more philosophical answer is that the Potential for a new world must have always existed in the ideal realm of Possibility. And infinite Potential exists ("is there") because of Logical Necessity : being implies prior existence.

    To materialists, such philosophical reasoning may sound like non-sense. Yet, for those who know that matter is subject to Entropy -- here today, gone tomorrow -- the timeless Source-of-Something must be immaterial, in some sense. For example, Claude Shannon defined his novel notion of Information as Negentropy (creative instead of destructive force or trend). Anyway, nothing come from nothing. And Matter comes from immaterial Energy : creative power.

    And that's what Plato & Aristotle were referring to as the Ideal realm of Potential Forms, which are not Material, but Mental -- not Physical but Meta-Physical. Another Platonic term for a creative organizing power was LOGOS (the power of Reason). However, in my personal worldview, I use a modern concept to refer to the pre-space-time Potential for creating Real Things : Intentional Information (EnFormAction). Scientists sometimes speak of knowing the "Mind of God", when faced with that great unknown reservoir of not-yet-real reality. You can call it God, or G*D, or eternal Potential, or Logos. But wherever and whatever it is, that power-to-create-a-world-from-nothing is awesome. :smile:


    Stephen Hawking said that his quest is simply "trying to understand the mind of God".” ...

    Negentropy is reverse entropy. It means things becoming more in order. By 'order' is meant organisation, structure and function: the opposite of randomness ...

    What is EnFormAction? :
    EnFormAction is not a physical force, pushing objects around. It’s more like Gravity and Strange Attractors of Physics that “pull” stuff toward them. It is in effect a Teleological Attractor. How that “spooky action at a distance” works may be best explained by Terrence Deacon’s definition of “Absence”.
    http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

    Logos :
    In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
    http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
  • Gnomon
    1.9k
    They as real although brief make for the Casmir effect.PoeticUniverse
    Sounds like "spooky action at a distance".
    Like Gravity, Casimir "sucks". :joke:

    The Casimir effect: a force from nothing :
    https://physicsworld.com/a/the-casimir-effect-a-force-from-nothing/

    Chaos Theory : The term 'Strange Attractor' is used to describe an attractor (a region or shape to which points are 'pulled' as the result of a certain process)
    Note -- the "region" is in abstract Phase Space, not real State Space.
  • Gnomon
    1.9k
    No, the virtuals can't become particles; they don't have the full quanta.PoeticUniverse
    So, they're not even real enough to be virtual??? :joke:
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    Sounds like "spooky action at a distance".Gnomon

    Sorry, one cannot diminish the Casmir effect by saying ""Spooky".

    So, they're not even real enough to be virtual??? :joke:Gnomon

    The joke needs more work; they are real enough, as the quantum fluctuations.
  • Gnomon
    1.9k
    Sorry, one cannot diminish the Casmir effect by saying ""Spooky".PoeticUniverse
    Yes. But I wasn't referring to the Effect, which is an empirical observation. It's the Cause that's uncanny. For example, both Newton and Einstein were perplexed by the implicit "spooky action at a distance" of Gravity. That's because such a sucking force was not allowed in their realistic mechanistic paradigm, where a pushing force was transmitted by direct matter-to-matter contact. A come-hither pulling force smacked of witchcraft.

    Einstein evaded that problem of Causal Agency by proposing the counter-intuitive notion of curved space-time. Which merely replaced one mystery with another. So, now the old materialistic paradigm has been replaced by the metaphor of matterless emptiness as an Aethereal substance. Ironically, he was the one who applied the scare-word "spooky" to "diminish" another concept that defies common sense. Yet, today most scientists have accommodated their professional worldviews to the experiment-baffling-randomness, and the non-local weirdness, and the wave-particle non-sense of Quantum Theory. In effect, they accept the strange empirical Effects, even as they rationalize even more occult theoretical Causes. :cool:



    * We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. . . .
    * Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this Agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers. . . .
    * I have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the force of gravity, but I have not yet assigned a cause to gravity. . . ."

    ___Isaac Newton

    * Einstein's general theory of relativity has an unusual answer to that question which will be explored in this spotlight text. In part, gravity is an illusion. In part, it is associated with a quantity called “curvature”. Overall, gravity is intimately connected with the geometry of space and time. . . .
    * Albert Einstein said: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. . .
    * Albert Einstein famously said that quantum mechanics should allow two objects to affect each other's behaviour instantly across vast distances, something he dubbed “spooky action at a distance”
    * “Quantum theory yields much, but it hardly brings us close to the Old One's secrets. I, in any case, am convinced He does not play dice with the universe.”.
    * “God Integrates Empirically”

    ___Albert Einstein
  • Gnomon
    1.9k
    So, Something had to ever be, it having no alternative, with no option not to be, with no opposite, and with no possibility of it coming from the impossible ‘Nothing’. The Something, then, is eternal, in that it is uncreated can never go away. It is Permanent as the Causeless Cause of what comes forth of it, which can only be temporaries.PoeticUniverse
    I agree that your logic is impeccable. Yet, intelligent people still disagree on the details of exactly what that essential "Something" is, Ontologically. Is it a material Thing like a self-organizing planet? Is it an immaterial Force like Chi? Or is it an immortal Wizard like The Great OZ behind the curtain? I have my own notions on the subject, but others may disagree, depending on their idiosyncratic worldview, or their communal mindset. :smile:

    impeccable-jokes-i-have-a-chicken-proof-lawnn-n-its-impeccable.jpg
  • 180 Proof
    6.5k
    ... intelligent people still disagree on the details of exactly what that essential "Something" is, Ontologically.Gnomon
    Democritus calls this "void". Spinoza calls this "natura naturans". Emmy Noether mathematically demonstrated this to be "fundamental symmetries" (of the vacuum) from which Conservation Laws were then derived. QFT further extrapolates to the "true vacuum". These are commensurable examples of physical not-something (not metaphysical nothing(ness)) and, therefore, non-physical / im-material / super-natural woo-of-the-gaps (e.g. Platonism) is not needed – certainly because woo explains even less than contemporary fundamental physics. :mask:
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    he was the one who applied the scare-word "spooky" to "diminish" another concept that defies common sense.Gnomon

    That was about quantum entanglement, and if you look it up you will see that it has been found. Also, spacetime is essentially the gravitational field. We've also found gravitational waves. "Occult" doesn't apply.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    Is it a material ThingGnomon

    Yes, as all is constituted of it as what we call 'things' for convenience, but the temporaries are not identical to themselves over time; perhaps call 'things' events or processes.

    Saying 'Chi' and 'Oz' as woo in the same discussion doesn't make it unreal.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    gravity is an illusion. In part, it is associated with a quantity called “curvature”Gnomon

    GRAVITY EXPLAINED

    The Strength of Gravity, the Feeble Apparent

    Gravity is a universal force—for any body:
    The force felt by a body is mass proportional;
    Yet, the acceleration that’s felt is the inverse!
    This coincidence removes all mass dependence.

    (Einstein transcended this amazing “coincidental” race
    By bodies going straight through curved space.)

    Gravity might be derived from the fundamentals,
    The byproduct of a small residual after cancelations
    Of opposite electric or color charges, and more.
    Why then is gravity universal, for its sources are not?

    Perhaps the appearance of feebleness is deceptive
    Since protons and neutrons are but lightweights.
    But why are they so light? Their mass is a compromise
    Between a disturbance energy and its cancellation.

    The quarks’ color charge
    Disturbs gluons around them,
    Small at first,
    But larger growing farther from the quark.

    These disturbances cost energy,
    But, how to cancel them?
    With an anti-quark
    Or two complementarily colored quarks.

    But, the qualifying quarks
    Can’t sit atop the originals,
    For quarks have no definite position,
    Just a wave function,
    And they can’t be localized
    To a small spread of position,
    For this requires a larger energy;
    So, forget nullification.

    The compromise is that
    Some residual energy amounts
    From the not-completely-canceled
    Gluon field disturbances
    And from the not-completely-canceled
    Quark positionings;

    Thus, the proton mass from m=E/cc,
    With this tricky element
    Of how the gluon disturbance field
    Grows with distance.

    The residual strong energy
    From color charge also binds
    The protons and neutrons
    In the atomic nucleus;

    The electromagnetic electron/nuclei
    Charge residuals
    Bind atoms into molecules,
    And molecules into materials.

    Asymptotic freedom
    Is a subtle feedback effect
    From virtual particles
    Antiscreening the color charge.

    This antiscreening builds up gradually,
    Especially at first,
    Then proceeds more quickly,
    Building upon each building.

    Whereas, screening happens
    For electrically charged particles,
    Being such as a positive charge
    Attracts a negative virtual cloud.

    Thus, at first,
    Since it’s so slow to build,
    The pressure to localize the nullifying quarks
    Is quite mild as well;

    Thus, there’s no need
    To very strictly localize and
    So the energies are small;
    So then is the proton mass.

    This is the lightness of being.

    (Ideas herein were gathered from readings, esp. Frank Wilczek)
  • Manuel
    1.9k


    Maybe there was always something. Our best science can only predict up close to the big bang. Then it breaks down.

    But from the big bang to "before" if, that makes any sense, which is not clear, we have no clue. Perhaps, and contrary to all our intuitions, something can come out of nothing, given enough "time", which didn't exist prior to the big bang, supposedly. Or maybe it existed in a manner which is beyond us.

    Or the multiverse could be a possibility.

    The point being that we likely don't have intelligence enough to understand why there is something or why there should be a beginning or an infinity.

    Some physicists now argue that something is more plausible than nothing. The laws of physics may well indicate this and it may be true. Doesn't take away from the fact that in conception, for us, it is extremely natural and much easier to understand "nothing existing" than something. No effort is required.

    But we don't know. You could be right as well.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    Perhaps, and contrary to all our intuitions, something can come out of nothing, given enough "time", which didn't exist prior to the big bang, supposedly.Manuel

    We can't even hope for 'Nothing' to be or do something because 'it' isn't. You're right that humans might have trouble pondering anExistent that has no alternative or opposite, given that we can think of alternatives for other 'thing's, plus, Nothing is indeed a word, albeit that it means: not anything.

    Now, how can the Permanent Existent be something definite, like continuous points with this as a continuous 3D wave field, given that it has no beginning and thus no direction or design to it? It's likely that there isn't anything simpler, given that it has to be partless to be fundamental.

    Since the Permant Existent ever remains, it could make another temporary universe… unto a multiverse.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.2k
    Why not?Arthur1947

    Because there can't be a 'not'.

    I was born in 1947, too.
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k
    For example, both Newton and Einstein were perplexed by the implicit "spooky action at a distance" of Gravity.Gnomon

    Magnetism, Gravity, and Electricity were all, I suspect, candidate mechanisms for telekinesis/psychokinesis. Spoooooky! Very, very spoooooky!
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k
    The man who knew too much :point: @180 Proof

    The man who knew the man who knew too much :point: @TheMadFool

    :grin:
  • TheMadFool
    13.7k
    A format for an explanation for why there's something:

    Even if it were the case that nothing, it couldn't have stayed that way for long i.e. creatio ex nihilo.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.