Explain No-thing = Some-thing

[Brickjectivity]

It's being a Madonna fan that's truly unforgivable. And it only exemplifies how damaging to one's humanity science can be when one foolishly presumes it to be the pathway to all 'pertinent' truth.

Very few people in the US do that. I realize it is common in Marxist countries. Being a Madonna fan is unforgivable? She's pop radio and a tremendous resource for Weird Al.

 

[viole]

Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Because there is something, that is, the law of gravity, then the universe can and will come from nothing. Now firstly Hawking asserts the existence of something, and because of that existence this is proof that the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

This was one of the world's leading scientists.

The word science comes from Latin "scientia," which means knowledge. The words knowledge and science are synonyms. Knowledge is facts, truths, realities that is acquired by observation and personal experience.

The statement quoted above is known as a paradox. A synonym of paradox is contradiction, or nonsense.

When a statement such as "something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe" and that that "something" is "literally nothing" we are equating something with nothing.

Now if we say that x creates y we presuppose that x already exists. If we say x creates x we have created a paradox, or a contradiction, or nonsense. The so-called "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." That is where a man is going to pull himself up by pulling on his own bootstraps.

So to those that adhere to the teachings of scientists such as Hawking. How is it that No-thing = Some-thing?

In defence of people like Hawking and Krauss we have to remember that they are not experts of nothing. Unlike their philosophical detractors.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

Very few people in the US do that. I realize it is common in Marxist countries. Being a Madonna fan is unforgivable? She's pop radio and a tremendous resource for Weird Al.

Pop radio has crowned a dozen subsequent queens of the 'strutting sluts' since Madonna. She's been forgotten. But the pop radio money pump never rests, and the strutting **** acts are still making them money.

And this site is full of folks who worship science as the fount of all truth and wisdom.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Because there is something, that is, the law of gravity, then the universe can and will come from nothing. Now firstly Hawking asserts the existence of something, and because of that existence this is proof that the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

Newsflash: what physicists mean by "nothing", is not the same as what the average joe means by "nothing", or what your average philosopher will mean by "nothing".

The statement quoted above is known as a paradox. A synonym of paradox is contradiction, or nonsense.

It's not. The problem is not the statement. The problem is that what you mean by "nothing", is not what the statement means by "nothing".

When a statement such as "something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe" and that that "something" is "literally nothing" we are equating something with nothing.

Now if we say that x creates y we presuppose that x already exists. If we say x creates x we have created a paradox, or a contradiction, or nonsense. The so-called "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." That is where a man is going to pull himself up by pulling on his own bootstraps.

So to those that adhere to the teachings of scientists such as Hawking. How is it that No-thing = Some-thing?

You are making a fallacious argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For a serious philosophical argument.

A "serious" philosophical argument, from a guy who's only claim to fame is being a "professional debater", while his debates are also nothing more then the ramblings of a pre-defined script that is repeated ad nauseum while all scrutiny of it gets ignored.

Not that any of you guys will take it seriously, because most of you "know about science." :scoff:

No. One doesn't require to know about science to not take this seriously.
Only only needs to have some basic knowledge about logical fallacies and the ability to see them when they are used - even when they are cleverly (read: dishonestly) hidden a way in a sciency-sounding, yet fallacious, stream of nonsense.

Hawking apparently believes in ontological pluralism (that is, reality is literally different from person to person). This is crazy.

If you're not in the mood for this, there is also showtunes. Sound of Music, "Nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could." That's right, disproven by showtunes.

Bare claims don't prove or disprove anything, ever.

 

[bobhikes]

Scientific observation has shown that it is impossible to make something appear from nothing.

Scientists are on both sides of the statement there are some that believe the universe was created from nothing and some that believe everything always existed. Most all scientists agree we don't have the knowledge to verify either. What you are quoting are another's beliefs that you have not researched, as you take them as gospel. If that is how you wish to lead your life fine.

Don't discredit my research unless you do your own. I have read many of Hawkins books including his last. I have read much about DNA. I have taken many computer language courses and can write programs. Like many other Books and studies I have read, I have researched answers for and against my key questions and made my own informed decision. You don't have to agree but at least research your opinion.

 

[`mud]

Some of Germanies keenest minds discovered that one can isolate an atom-less format in non-repressible atmosphere.
They are now in search for an acceptable container !

 

[Brickjectivity]

Pop radio has crowned a dozen subsequent queens of the 'strutting sluts' since Madonna. She's been forgotten. But the pop radio money pump never rests, and the strutting **** acts are still making them money.

I will add that to my collection of thoughts about Madonna. I've never been able to afford to go to a concern for anyone, ever. I just have heard things on the radio. I've always considered her lyrics to be interesting and alluring and think of her when I think of the Sirens in the Homer's Odyssey. I've met a rock solid Madonna fan. He was someone who needed to hear her message, the message that I wouldn't have understood. These people who get famous singing always have a message. They are multi dimensional despite appearances.

And this site is full of folks who worship science as the fount of all truth and wisdom.

Sometimes, yes; but I feel empathy about it. The appearance of confidence and the presentation of certainty is just a feature of personality sometimes. Other times when someone believes they have the found the fountain of truth, you really can't argue it out of them. Its like trying to tell a mom that her child is no longer necessary and can be left at the park. They might be on a one person mission to save the world, and who blame them for wanting the world to be better? Its compassionate to hope that the cycle of intimate suffering becomes less insufferable.

 

[PureX]

I will add that to my collection of thoughts about Madonna. I've never been able to afford to go to a concern for anyone, ever. I just have heard things on the radio. I've always considered her lyrics to be interesting and alluring and think of her when I think of the Sirens in the Homer's Odyssey. I've met a rock solid Madonna fan. He was someone who needed to hear her message, the message that I wouldn't have understood. These people who get famous singing always have a message. They are multi dimensional despite appearances.


Sometimes, yes; but I feel empathy about it. The appearance of confidence and the presentation of certainty is just a feature of personality sometimes. Other times when someone believes they have the found the fountain of truth, you really can't argue it out of them. Its like trying to tell a mom that her child is no longer necessary and can be left at the park. They might be on a one person mission to save the world, and who blame them for wanting the world to be better? Its compassionate to hope that the cycle of intimate suffering becomes less insufferable.

The thing is, that I believe these phenomena go hand in hand: the strutting sl-t acts making millions over the last 40 years pushing the capitalist message of selfishness and greed, and the worship of "scientism" as the new god of all knowledge and truth. Because the fact of the matter is that both are expressions of philosophical materialism being adopted as a lifestyle and a religion. And that considers art/spiritualism/humanism mostly just irrelevant "make-believe".

 

[syo]

Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Haha!

Maybe he meant Jesus was not needed.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The thing is, that I believe these phenomena go hand in hand: the strutting sl-t acts making millions over the last 40 years pushing the capitalist message of selfishness and greed, and the worship of "scientism" as the new god of all knowledge and truth. Because the fact of the matter is that both are expressions of philosophical materialism being adopted as a lifestyle and a religion. And that considers art/spiritualism/humanism mostly just irrelevant "make-believe".

I think the connection is one merely of appearance. Its true Madonna is from the age of excess, but she's also from an age in which people feel betrayed by the promise of all that 1950's idealism. That is her concern and rightly so. People are working out what life should be like, and the musicians lead the way in opening the conversation about it. There's a lot more to 1950's idealism than the promise of a house. Its the promise that there is simple way of living which guarantees happiness, and the promise is constraining and choking people. They're failing in marriage and struggling with social stigmas. The ministry are oppressive in their attitudes. Towards the 70's the industries are starting to betray retirees, and this gets much worse in the 1980s. In many places everyone is hearing morals preached but not feeling them practiced. She's part of the post 1960's culture, trying to weigh good and evil from scratch, because the standards have failed. Its during her lifetime that the big embarrassing evangelists appear (and later flop publically: Swaggart etc.) Preachers are running away with their organ players and things like that. There's news all the time about corruption in ministry, and this is no small thing for US citizens with dreamy eyes believing in a puritanical past. I come along later and am part of the evangelical culture, but she's more like a renegade not so much attempting to glorify wealth. Her show style appears in the midst of a lot of social turmoil...seemingly peaceful on the surface but devastating to a lot of that generation. Apparently burlesque is part of her message, and she likes to approach religion from a scathing angle. This is not so much a product of worldliness but a discussion about it, and she's not always right but opens the conversation for some people. On the radio I could scarcely avoid some of her songs though and it wasn't something I could appreciate. It was catchy, though. Also another sign of depth is that this particular performer is very clever, not just a singer. Many aren't aware that this 'Madonna' performer purchased a vice presidency seat with Time Warner a long time ago (even before the merger with AOL). I read this in a small notice in the papers which I happened across. I don't remember her legal name at the time.

Madonna is what we call a self-made entertainer. She's not like Spears or Michael Jackson sacrificed from childhood to the entertainment industry. Now those two...hmmm maybe their careers are a product of worldly culture, but even they don't let themselves be defined by it forever. Their lives take turns.

 

[halbhh]

I don't see why the non-existence of nothing implies that something is eternal.

But I see it as likely that time itself is not eternal. Time and the universe are simply co-existent.

The issue in all this isn't about our own 'real' time in this local Universe. It's that either fantastically something existed which gave rise to this local Universe, or else equally fantastically this Universe always existed (oscillating for instance) (where that 'always' is the fantastical feeling part), or equally fantastically ____X theory here____etc. Any way you cut it, it's amazing really. Of course one could attempt to not be amazed, but that's....well, Einstein's attitude is similar to my own -- an enchantment or amazement at the 'music of the spheres' -- the wonder of it all.

I've many times stated to various folks that one cannot prove or disprove God by anything in physics. (though one can of course disprove some simplistic and incompetent idea of 'god')

 

[Polymath257]

The issue in all this isn't about our own 'real' time in this local Universe. It's that either fantastically something existed which gave rise to this local Universe, or else equally fantastically this Universe always existed (oscillating for instance) (where that 'always' is the fantastical feeling part), or equally fantastically ____X theory here____etc. Any way you cut it, it's amazing really. Of course one could attempt to not be amazed, but that's....well, Einstein's attitude is similar to my own -- an enchantment or amazement at the 'music of the spheres' -- the wonder of it all.

I've many times stated to various folks that one cannot prove or disprove God by anything in physics. (though one can of course disprove some simplistic and incompetent idea of 'god')

Yes, I think that, ultimately, the question of why there is 'something' as opposed to 'nothing' is unanswerable. We just have to accept that there is (obviously) 'something'.

But you do seem to miss the possibility that time itself is finite and with it 'existence' into the past. If time itself is finite and the universe has existed whenever there has been time, then it is literally meaningless to say that the universe 'came about' by the 'action' of something else *even if* it has only existed for a finite amount of time.

There is a natural tendency to assume that any instant of time has a precursor. But that is an assumption and one for which there is some evidence it is simply false.

So, when you say that the universe has 'always existed', you default to a cyclic universe (with time infinite into the past) as opposed to one where time itself 'started' with no precursor.

 

[gnostic]

I would like to point out your first paragraph and your last:

Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

So to those that adhere to the teachings of scientists such as Hawking. How is it that No-thing = Some-thing?

You do know what the word “theoretical” mean in association with “physics” or with “physicist”, don’t you?

It mean, a large parts of his works involved in using maths to provide a feasible solution to a draft (or proposed) explanation.

So unless, the physicist in question discover some evidence or provide test results from some experiments that support his concepts, his explanatory models aren’t “scientific theory”.

Much of Hawking’s works are theoretical, not tested, not supported by evidence, therefore they aren’t accepted as science.

Science - and I mean real science - science required some testable and measurable evidence, needs to be falsifiable, and needs to be reviewed by peers.

Much of works are mathematical feasible, showing that he is very much capable of thinking outside of the box, but in the real world, they are largely untestable and untested.

While I admired his inquiring mind, I don’t adhere to any of his works, if they are untested or lack verifiable evidence.

Hawking have been corrected by less well-known physicists.

Don’t get me wrong, Eyes to See. Some theoretical works have been known to be correct, testable and tested.

For instance, Peter Higgs formulated a very theoretical papers on the Higgs Mechanism that explain how mass is generated, way back in 1962. It was only in 2012, they were be able to test for the Higgs boson, using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

It took 50 years, to get the first evidence. So Higgs mechanism is no longer purely “theoretical”.

Likewise, in 1948, Gamow, Alpher and Herman predicted the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and they were theoretical until it’s discovery in 1964, by Penzias and Wilson, thereby providing evidence for the Big Bang theory, at the same debunking Steady State model that was proposed by Bondi, Gold and Hoyle in 1948.

So it may take time to verify any theoretical concept with evidence, especially when they could develop technology capable of testing such concepts. It did with both the Big Bang theory and with Higgs mechanism.

Some theoretical models have become scientific theories, while others have failed. So there is possibilities that one day, some scientists may be able to test Hawking’s highly theoretical models, and may one day be valid and verified. Or one day, Hawking is simply wrong with his concepts.

Anyway, I am not willing to accept any of Hawking’s (theoretical) proposals until they have been rigorously tested.

 

[night912]

Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Because there is something, that is, the law of gravity, then the universe can and will come from nothing. Now firstly Hawking asserts the existence of something, and because of that existence this is proof that the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

This was one of the world's leading scientists.

The word science comes from Latin "scientia," which means knowledge. The words knowledge and science are synonyms. Knowledge is facts, truths, realities that is acquired by observation and personal experience.

The statement quoted above is known as a paradox. A synonym of paradox is contradiction, or nonsense.

When a statement such as "something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe" and that that "something" is "literally nothing" we are equating something with nothing.

Now if we say that x creates y we presuppose that x already exists. If we say x creates x we have created a paradox, or a contradiction, or nonsense. The so-called "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." That is where a man is going to pull himself up by pulling on his own bootstraps.

So to those that adhere to the teachings of scientists such as Hawking. How is it that No-thing = Some-thing.

It seems like you are confused paradox and contradiction. You say that it is a paradox, but you don't see it as such. So look at it from the perspective of a paradox and not from a contradiction. A paradox and a contradiction are not the same thing and cannot be interchangeable.

 

[gnostic]

i would to add to my last post, another example of technology catching up with revolutionary concept that was theoretical at the time:

The heliocentric model of planetary motion.

It took over one-and-a-half thousand years to finally test and verify concept of Aristarchus’ heliocentric concept (mid-2nd century BCE) that the planets including the Earth, orbited around sun.

Aristarchus’ proposal predated the heliocentrism of Nicolaus Copernicus.

A more popular concept - the geocentric model - was advocated by Aristotle (4th century BCE) and Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century CE), where Earth was fixed and stationary - the centre of the universe - while the sun and known planets were orbiting around the Earth.

Galileo, Kepler and Newton would verify Copernicus’ heliocentric model, and debunked the geocentric model of Aristotle and Ptolemy.

It took the invention of the telescope to prove geocentric model wrong.

 

[night912]

Here's an advice for those religious theists out there(in actuality, only for those that don't think critically), think outside of religion and keep that mindset before you start looking at science. That way there's a chance that you have your eyes open and realize that the majority of people with some knowledge of what science is, aren't treating it as a religion like yourself. So scientists are not being treated like religious leaders or prophets, messengers, etc. We're not required to accept everything coming out of their mouth as being the truth. There's no punishment for disagreeing with them. Our line of thought in the past is not necessarily the same as it currently is.

 

[halbhh]

Yes, I think that, ultimately, the question of why there is 'something' as opposed to 'nothing' is unanswerable. We just have to accept that there is (obviously) 'something'.

But you do seem to miss the possibility that time itself is finite and with it 'existence' into the past. If time itself is finite and the universe has existed whenever there has been time, then it is literally meaningless to say that the universe 'came about' by the 'action' of something else *even if* it has only existed for a finite amount of time.

There is a natural tendency to assume that any instant of time has a precursor. But that is an assumption and one for which there is some evidence it is simply false.

So, when you say that the universe has 'always existed', you default to a cyclic universe (with time infinite into the past) as opposed to one where time itself 'started' with no precursor.

Regarding the hypothesis you supposed -- "But you do seem to miss the possibility that time itself is finite and with it 'existence' into the past." -- could I suggest you don't try to guess on such a thing?

Here's a nice exposition of that idea: The Beginning of TIme (Stephen Hawking's site)

I've read in astrophysics for decades, a lifelong interest, and I'd read Hawking's 'The Beginning of Time' at his website (link above) many years back, and then read it again after he revised it also, and understood his hypothesis, since I have a background in physics. It didn't have any terms that were new, and it was worth reading. It would be a logical error to imagine even something such as that if Hawking's theory were correct it would preclude God. Not how things work. heh heh

For me the open question of the origin of our Universe, that is, our physics, is of great fascination, so I've read what seems like 15 or 20 theories over the years, and don't get too enamored with one merely because it's elegant, as are the competing theories. Though personally I like Hawking's idea, it's still just as speculative as the oscillation Universe idea.

 

[Chris Terai]

Nothing = something in the same way that a coin has both a back and a front. They go together. You can't have something without nothing, nor nothing without something.

Consider what objects would look like without the space that delineates them. Why, we couldn't make out the borders, and thus All That Is would be one big blob. But if there were nothing and not something, then there would be no perception, for there would be no thing to perceive.

When an object is separated into two halves, the space within is the nothing. Without that space, there are not two things. That is the relationship between something and nothing; without both, neither exists. Expand one and expand the other. Dissolve one and the other likewise ceases to be.

 

[YoursTrue]

Stephen Hawking, a theoretical physicist, said: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Because there is something, that is, the law of gravity, then the universe can and will come from nothing. Now firstly Hawking asserts the existence of something, and because of that existence this is proof that the universe can and will create itself out of nothing.

This was one of the world's leading scientists.

The word science comes from Latin "scientia," which means knowledge. The words knowledge and science are synonyms. Knowledge is facts, truths, realities that is acquired by observation and personal experience.

The statement quoted above is known as a paradox. A synonym of paradox is contradiction, or nonsense.

When a statement such as "something pretty mysterious had to give rise to the origin of the universe" and that that "something" is "literally nothing" we are equating something with nothing.

Now if we say that x creates y we presuppose that x already exists. If we say x creates x we have created a paradox, or a contradiction, or nonsense. The so-called "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." That is where a man is going to pull himself up by pulling on his own bootstraps.

So to those that adhere to the teachings of scientists such as Hawking. How is it that No-thing = Some-thing?

Thank you for that post. It is incredible that "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." And I'm laughing as I repeat Hawking's statement.