:flower:

$\lim_{p \rightarrow \infty} P(a) = 100 \%$

Where,

p = potentiality, a = actuality. P(a) = probability of an actuality (something)

Nothing has infinite potentiality.

Ergo,

Something will actualize.

There are different notions of nothing too. One thing is to say there can't be "nothing" in the universe, there's always a quantum vacuum, which is something or sorts.

But we also have the nothing of ordinary life, as in, before I was born, I wasn't anything nor will I be anything after death. There isn't anything for me to grasp when I'm not here. That's a legitimate use of the word.

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. — PoeticUniverse

That's an attractive idea, of finding something which can't be simpler. That makes some sense. The thing is, we need evidence to postulate this as something that happened, instead of leaving it up as a possibility. This is fine too, but we should remember that we are speaking of something that may not exist.

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

This description of the hypothetical First Cause of the Big Bang sounds like something I might write. It accurately outlines what I call : BEING ; Enformer ; LOGOS ; G*D ; etc. But we seem to differ in our opinions of exactly what that "Something" is, essentially.

In some of your retorts, you seem to imagine the Prime Cause as a Physical Thing -- like a cue ball -- while I lean toward a Meta-Physical Principle -- like Logos. Physical "things" are material, specific, and subject to the laws of Thermodynamics, hence temporary and impermanent. But Meta-Physical Principles are rational concepts, general, universal, holistic, and ideal. So, only such non-things could possibly fit your unconditional answer to "why there is something?".

Temporary physical things are Real & Embodied & Relative. But only the eternal essential creative power-to-embody could be "Permanent", and all those other Absolute adjectives. Unfortunately, such a non-thing (absolute Zero ; Infinity) cannot exist in the thermodynamic Real world, because it would then be subject to Entropy and extinguishment (heat death). Yet, in the Ideal world of human reason, unconditioned Universals are essential to understanding of relative Reality. :cool:

Metaphysics is a type of philosophy or study that uses broad concepts to help define reality and our understanding of it. ... Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

PS___Did I misunderstand your position, or did you misinterpret mine? :chin:

This description of the hypothetical First Cause of the Big Bang sounds like something I might write. It accurately outlines what I call : BEING ; Enformer ; LOGOS ; G*D ; etc. But we seem to differ in our opinions of exactly what that "Something" is, essentially. — Gnomon

It is the simplest, so there's really no more to go with it to keep it Fundamental. Its math may be messy, though.

I can see how the “intricacies and complexities” of QFT would arise in its complete math description nightmare, given that the 25 quantum fields overlap and can interact with one another (we can’t even solve the three-body problem), but any individual field would seem to be of the ultimate simplicity. That QFT works so well is a huge plus for it being ontological, too.

I see that the following is the crux of the matter of much wondering about existence:

“I cannot rid myself of the conviction that Nothing would have obtained had not something special somehow superseded or counteracted it. Yes, I know that seems circular— …”

— Robert Lawrence Kuhn

(Answering him in an email):

Not really circular, but undeniably showing a feat accomplished such that we can claim necessity for sure as a Truth without a Proof, which is about all that philosophy alone can do, which is why it’s more satisfying to the find the physical analog of the logic through physics.

The Proof is not always necessary or possible, but we do have the quantum vacuum and its overall quantum field staring us in the face as able to make all the constituents of the universe. Carlo Rovelli likes to say that the quantum fields exhaust reality, which one could also take as a joke that all this research can be really tiring, although I find it to be invigorating.

‘Necessity’ is of course still as a brute fact, but that’s the best point for the buck to stop, at the causeless, in order to avoid the infinite regress that ever ensues if we get taken in by the template of wanting a lesser stage to ever have to come from a greater stage.

I can only offer that since ‘Nothing’ couldn’t cut the mustard that ‘it’ couldn’t, and it is thus again impossible or that ‘it’ cannot be an it, and so The One Existent has no alternative and thus it must be, as the least state that gives rise to the composite and then to the greater complexity, just as we see as what happened in the universe.

I’ll perhaps have to think more about why the One Existent has to be what it is, given that with no beginning it couldn’t have any specific design or direction going into it. At first, I thought that it not being anything in particular somehow meant that it could be everything, either linearly or all at once (we don’t yet know the mode of time), but lately I’m sticking with that it defaults to be being the simplest state with no parts in order to satisfy the fundamental arts, which state still seems to be able to do anything and everything.

In the class of universes that have life, our universe is not among the worst, nor close to perfect, as it is mathematically elegant, for there are superfluous entities in it, along with a lot of waste. Protons and neutrons require only up and down quarks, and not the other four quarks. Of course, the extravagant waste may have increased the chances of Earth having the right conditions for life and the other quarks and stuff may play some role.

Our universe then is generic, as mediocre, even, somewhere within the range of universes that can achieve life. Our universe took an extremely long time to evolve cosmically, as well as for life to develop biologically. It perhaps wasn’t the quickest or the slowest to do so. It kind of limped along through the deuterium bottleneck at first.

We on Earth had to wait for a metal rich third generation star, and then early life had to suffer through five extinctions, nearly wiping out all of the species, the last near extinction, the Permian, opening up a space for mammals to evolve. I doubt if Intelligent Design consists of throwing a huge rock at the Earth.

That our universe is somewhere in between perfect and the worst shows that there has to be a multiverse. Also, if there can be one universe then there can be more.

It is the simplest, so there's really no more to go with it to keep it Fundamental. Its math may be messy, though. — PoeticUniverse

Some forum posters have asserted that the Cause of our world must be more complex than the Effect : e.g. an infinite array of multiverses. And in some cases that may seem to be true. For example, humans are still trying to create something (AI) that is at least as complex as a human. In speculation, it's possible that human culture will eventually create a race of robots that are equal-to or superior-to humanity.

But, I envision the "something" that created our complexifying universe as both more-than in Potential and less-than in Actual. For example, the math for computing the possibilities of Infinity (outside of space-time) is simple : just start at 1 and keep counting forever. But, if you start counting at 0 (zero), the first step is infinitely wide, and the math-machine just spins its wheels.

That's why I assume that the First Cause must be BothAnd. Both Infinity (all possibilities) and Zero (no thing). One of those possible powers is the god-like ability to lift itself with its own bootstraps : i.e. to be self-existent. But, an infinite Tower-of-Turtles is always missing something "fundamental" : a Foundation. So, for me, Aristotelian Potential is a necessary attribute of the Prime Cause. It may be "First" from our perspective in the gravity-well of space-time. But from the God's-eye-view of unlimited possibilities, it's a Forever Cause. :smile:

That our universe is somewhere in between perfect and the worst shows that there has to be a multiverse. Also, if there can be one universe then there can be more. — PoeticUniverse

The "argument from mediocrity" may be a reasonable statement. But, outside of our unique universe, it's unverifiable. so we'll never know if it's true. The infinite Potential of a Forever Cause, could very well include a Zillion Multiverses. But the only 'verse I know anything about is good ole GAIA. So I don't bog-down my mind by trying to do the math of Eternal Infinities. It's an unreal, meta-physical concept. More like Qualia than Quanta. Fun to speculate, but messy to calculate :wink:

Halt and Catch Fire :
a program command, such as dividing by zero, that will cause a computer to crash & burn.

Enfernity : my coinage of Spatially Infinite & Temporally Eternal

OMNIVERSE :

TURTLEVERSE :

Why not?

All That Lies Between

Why not? — Arthur1947

For example, humans are still trying to create something (AI) that is at least as complex as a human. In speculation, it's possible that human culture will eventually create a race of robots that are equal-to or superior-to humanity. — Gnomon

People will never be able to create a human outside the womb of an already existing human being. By the very nature of human beings (or other organisms). All humans contain the contain a part of the history of the entire universe and creating people would mean creating a universe.
Hence AI can never be as complex as beings.

But, if you start counting at 0 (zero), the first step is infinitely wide, and the math-machine just spins its wheels. — Gnomon

That's because there is nothing before zero. Postullating a time zero, as in the big bang model within the confines of general relativity implies an impossibility to start, as there is nothing to get things started. Hence GR fails in the Planck era.

People will never be able to create a human outside the womb of an already existing human being. By the very nature of human beings (or other organisms). — Cartuna

Transhumanists are aware of the biological facts of life. But they have faith in human creativity and ingenuity. Since the essence of a baby human is encoded into a spiral of physical stuff in the form of digital mathematical symbols (abstract Information), scientists assume that they can also use chains of 1s & 0s to produce, first a thinking machine (AI), and eventually a living machine (AL). And they see no need to add a dollop of Magic or a soupçon of Spirit to the formula, in order to manufacture a living organism. I don't believe in Magic, but I do believe in the multiplied power of leveraged Information (knowledge).

The history of human technology is littered with confident "nevers" -- "Men will never fly" -- that nevertheless became routine "evers". So, while I realize the Holy Grail of man-made-life may be harder to achieve than the Trans-homo-sapienistas assume, I'm not certain enough of my predictive abilities to prophesy the long-range future of a Global Science Project. Human Culture usually finds a way to exceed the limits of Human Nature. Maybe they will,or maybe they won't, make artificial babies. But some visionaries will die trying. :smile:

The past, present, and future of artificial life :
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2014.00008/full

PS___Giving them the benefit of the doubt, even if god-like scientists do avoid the pitfalls of Frankenstein --- to finally rejoice : "it's alive!" --- they will never be able to create something from nothing. :starstruck:

Physical "things" are material, specific, and subject to the laws of Thermodynamics, hence temporary and impermanent. But Meta-Physical Principles are rational concepts, general, universal, holistic, and ideal. So, only such non-things could possibly fit your unconditional answer to "why there is something?". — Gnomon

For my own interests, I will expand on that inherent limitation of Quantum Physics : it explains why things fall apart (Entropy), but not why they assemble into whole systems. QT does not account for "spooky" Gravity. Perhaps that's because G is not a Quanta, but a Qualia : not Physical, but Metaphysical. (am I barking up the wrong axis?)

The article below, by British physicist Julian Barbour, reveals that "There is nothing in the form of the laws of nature at the fundamental microscopic level that distinguishes a direction of time" (upward complexifying Evolution). Then, he notes that "Gravity presents many puzzles because it gives rise to “anti-thermodynamic” behavior: Under its influence, uniformly distributed matter tends to break up into clusters. As of now, no one knows how to describe this behavior using an entropy-type concept". That mysterious "clustering" behavior of matter is called by the negative-name of "Negentropy", attractive "Forces".

But, in my thesis, I call the positive aspect of Evolution : "Enformy". Previously, I had metaphorically compared it to the "strange attractor" force of Gravity. But I didn't think it was that simple. Now, I may have to rethink the Something that causes Things to gravitate into new things -- parts to become wholes -- elements to become systems. :chin:


The Mystery of Time’s Arrow :
anti-thermodynamic” behavior
https://nautil.us/issue/71/flow/the-mystery-of-times-arrow-rp

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, [ anti-thermodynamic ] natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

QT does not account for "spooky" Gravity. — Gnomon

Quantum gravity hasn't been figured out yet, but isn't it then a wonder then how QM works so well?

Sometimes we get lucky; apparently the weak effect of gravity is neglible at the miniscule QM level!

Roger Penrose thinks that at the point where the micro meets the macro, the gravity is enough there to swing the state, but we don't know where that point is. I predict it is about the size of a piece of dust since that's the mid-point between the largest and the smallest. Roger needs some money from to perform an experiment in space to find out. Send $$$ right away because he is very old and can't wait around too long.

it explains why things fall apart (Entropy), but not why they assemble into whole systems. — Gnomon

Maybe you watched my 'Energy' video… Let me know if the answer is in there.

Quantum gravity hasn't been figured out yet, but isn't it then a wonder then how QM works so well? — PoeticUniverse

I'm just guessing. But perhaps the Quantum Gravity gap is simply a matter of scale. Quantum effects typically manifest only on the smallest scales. And gravity is so weak that its effects only become apparent on cosmic scales, such as the curvature of vast quantities of space. Gravity is general and diffuse, while sub-atomic forces are specific and focused. Particle colliders require massive energy inputs just to study local quantum scales, but that's trivial compared to the gravitational forces of non-local Black Holes. Apparently, we need to amp-up our instruments in order to study Quantum effects inside a ginormous gravity well. Could the QG mystery be that simple, and that monumental? :chin:

Black Hole :
You might expect the authors to celebrate, but they say they also feel let down. Had the calculation involved deep features of quantum gravity rather than a light dusting, it might have been even harder to pull off, but once that was accomplished, it would have illuminated those depths. . . . .
In some way or other, space-time itself seems to fall apart at a black hole, implying that space-time is not the root level of reality, but an emergent structure from something deeper. Although Einstein conceived of gravity as the geometry of space-time, his theory also entails the dissolution of space-time, which is ultimately why information can escape its gravitational prison.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-most-famous-paradox-in-physics-nears-its-end-20201029/

Maybe you watched my 'Energy' video… Let me know if the answer is in there. — PoeticUniverse

Sorry, I was distracted by the girl in the red dress. All that dancing energy. . . . :wink:

I suppose the answer to the QG mystery may lie in-between Qualia & Quanta. Unfortunately, I couldn't find my long-ago poem about "Skebleens" : the binding forces in between. But I did find this pathetic puerile poesy in the archives :

Black Hole — Gnomon

Happy Black Hole Friday!

Hellholes hurl infernal light-year jets of fear,
In Centaurus, cross the galactic sphere.
Supermassive darkling beasts devour all;
Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

I sometimes have black hole days and I wonder if psychological black holes are in any way parallel to physical ones. But, in the psychological ones I do find that there is 'something' which seems to come out of them on a positive level. It is as if going into shamanic underworld brings forth some hidden treasures, even though there may be moments which may feel like 'nothingness' along the way.

I sometimes have black hole days and I wonder if psychological black holes are in any way parallel to physical ones — Jack Cummins

Well, you can't get out of physical ones, not even if you are shining light for help. Untill now I always came out of the psychological ones. But in both it can be pretty dark and give you tunnel vision ,and the feeling of getting ripped apart is present in both. It is even claimed that physical black holes form a portal to new and fresh universes, which is nonsense, but it certainly applies to psycho holes. From the outside their appearance is stretched in time and compressed in space. From the inside it's all in a flash and stretched out in space. Somehow, a psychological black hole seems to be the inverse, but both are singularities.

:smirk:

:grin:

The Something cannot be still and unmoving, for then naught could have become as the temporary happenings that we take as something. — PoeticUniverse

According to theory of relativity, time is a kind of space. That seems to explain how time may exist within a larger, timeless reality. Time itself is just one of timeless mathematical objects (a space), so there is no "passage" of time just as there is no "passage" of space or of any other timeless mathematical object. The "passage" of time is therefore just a feeling, a property of certain complex parts of spacetime that we call "conscious".