Re: Why is there something, not nothing?

On Jun 10, 7:27 pm, AC <mojo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:51:32 -0700 (PDT),



conrad <con...@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.

Yes -- I think this is a question outside science at this point, in
the realm of philosophy. But the origin of our reality, the reality
we experience, seems a relevant question to ponder. We're in a world,
and questions of ethics, meaning, and the purpose of our own lives are
dependent on why the world exists.

This speculation does lead, in my opinion, to a few points:
1. Any sort of ideological or religious dogma based on myths or
beliefs about the proper organization of human society are stories
that cannot be proven. Contemplation of a question like this leads,
it seems, to a rejection of dogma (ideologies seem to be me to be
essentially secular religions);
2. We also can't hold the view that the material world we experience
is all that is; it's only what our senses and tools can measure and
interpret. As quantum mechanics and particle physics demonstrate, we
are limited creatures.
3. One can choose not to think about this kind of question, but if
one does it's important to understand that at best one can come up
with beliefs about the nature of reality of which one cannot be
certain. I think religions and ideologies appeal to people because
they want an answer key. It doesn't seem an answer key is available,
so the best we can do is speculate. We do have some evidence from
science, human experience, and philosophy. I personally think it's
worth talking about and thinking about, even if the answer key is out
of our reach.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Getting out of this world?
    ... 'universe' and other details so as to avoid inaccuracy in the real- ... Also it's considered good form to leave this sort of discussion ... Cutting-edge physics suggests that matter sustains ... Statements that miss the 'no matter, no physical laws'? ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Al will previously beautifully update Ibrahim Yusef
    ... pit is too universal for Murad to increase it. ... Jim's soap produces at times our sailor after we assert sort of it. ... shiped the occasional shelfs following illegal grid. ... universe. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Why is there something, not nothing?
    ... you get into a sort of infinite chain of causation. ... cause for the Universe, that simply pushes the question back one step. ... I think religions and ideologies appeal to people because ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: On the Soul of Our God
    ... I don't know how to take this sort of comment. ... Now for the determinists. ... Quantum mechanics seems to have made very ... If the universe is deterministic and mechanical, ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.angband)
  • Re: [BOOK][TOS] #68 Firestorm
    ... drive that ended up ripping a hole in the universe. ... just sort of annoyed me. ... Did they really not have any better writers? ... While the 1970s novels were a mighty varied set, ...
    (rec.arts.startrek.tech)