Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
- From: AC <mojo214@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 Jun 2008 23:27:21 GMT
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:51:32 -0700 (PDT),
conrad <conrad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 3:09 pm, Scott Erb <scott...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 9, 3:56 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Scott Erb wrote:
The subject head is the one question I think about whenever I want to
give myself a puzzle I can't solve. Why is there something and not
nothing? How is it that a world of any sort exists? I do not follow
Who says there has to be a cause or a reason?
Given two alternatives: nothing or something, it seems logical to
expect there to be a reason why one state exists and not the other.
Thinking about this also provides some humility, I think -- we have to
confront the fact that we do not have access to knowledge to truly
understand the world in which we find ourselves.http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Cause and Effect is well known to be a model that is inadequate
for describing things that do not work at a macro scale.
Exercise: can you think of where Cause and Effect
cannot be applied?
Hint: Think about the laws involved with chance and where it
might be applicable.
The problem with demanding that everything be causal is a) it appears that
at least at some level, the universe doesn't actually work like that and b)
you get into a sort of infinite chain of causation. Once you require a
cause for the Universe, that simply pushes the question back one step.
Say for instance we accept the notion that our universe is essentially a
bubble of another universe. So the cause is some physical interaction in
that universe. So where did that universe come from? Maybe it's the same
answer; bubbles all the way down, but that hardly seems a good argument for
insisting on strict causation of everything.
By the same token, let's say, in the absense of evidence, I don't except any
of these multiverse or baby universe models. It seems to me, at the moment,
an application of Occam's Razor suggests that the best premise we can get
(right now) is a universe that wasn't caused at all, and that, in fact,
looking for an explanation for what caused the universe is as illogical as
asking "what's north of the North Pole".
To my mind, various multiverse theories get around this problem by simply
insisting that there's a sort of multispace, some sort of domain in which
multiple universes can exist (some what analogous to galaxies). But, as I
said before, that simply pushes the question back. At some point you're
either going to have to try to shortcircuit it by insisting that there was,
at some point in space and time (or multispace and multitime) where
something came from nothing, or it is indeed turtles all the way down.
I'm not saying either view is right or wrong. We're just beginning to reach
a level of sophistication where we can even meaningfully ask these sorts of
questions, and we're a long way from being able to sift through the various
claims from the good ol' quantum fluctuation to branes or bubble universes.
But whatever the answer, I suspect that we're going to have to turf the
Classical view of causation, which is fine, because Quantum Mechanics has
essentially been saying that sort of thing for decades.
--
Aaron Clausen mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
- From: Scott Erb
- Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
- References:
- Why is there something, not nothing?
- From: Scott Erb
- Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
- From: Robert J. Kolker
- Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
- From: Scott Erb
- Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
- From: conrad
- Why is there something, not nothing?
- Prev by Date: Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
- Next by Date: Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
- Next by thread: Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
