Why is there something rather than nothing?

[sealchan]

Seems like you are trying here. I would suggest that there wad no reason to believe that a particle could also be a wave until evidence presented itself.

Because it was believed that light could not be both described as a particle and described as a wave simultaneously, anything is true?

So let us recap. We have evidence to suggest that light is both particle and wave. But we have no evidence for belief in nothing existing. See the difference?

Would no evidence not be the perfect evidence for demonstrating that nothing indeed exists?

Human language sometimes succeeds the most when it naturally fails to conform to simple rationality.

 

[sealchan]

"Everything", like God or the Universe, is like a whole term which is a term which means the set of all things. As such it participates in the problem of self-reference which is logic's central mystery.

"Nothing" is its evil twin.

 

[Curious George]

Would no evidence not be the perfect evidence for demonstrating that nothing indeed exists?

Human language sometimes succeeds the most when it naturally fails to conform to simple rationality.

No, but that is good wordplay.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your statement that "God" comes from the "Scriptures" makes no sense. The "scriptures" are only a few thousand years old at most, while "God" is alleged to have always existed. So how can the "scriptures" create something older than themselves? And further, if the "scriptures" made God, then who made the "scriptures?"

Thank you, but my response was, "God answers the question, "Where does God come from?" in the scriptures."

It's a reasonable question, are you familiar with the scriptural answer, perhaps?

 

[sealchan]

No, but that is good wordplay.

Thanks! I consider myself a "student" of Douglas Hofstadter...

 

[Polymath257]

At the very edge of expanding space its going to expand more. Its a matter of intuition that there is room available for space to expand.

You are assuming there is an edge. Your image is of a universe expanding into space. That is NOT what happens in the Big Bang scenario. Instead, it is space itself expanding. There is no space outside of the universe. It is simply that the space is expanding: distances are getting larger over time.

I also was saying that if the universe is NOT contingent than cause and effect is infinite and eternal; something is always going to be happening in it, and something has always been going on in it. No end and no beginning to the doings of the universe. There by intuition is something perpetual about the universe.

And I see no reason to think that is the case. You aren't making the distinction between the universe and things inside of the universe. Each thing inside the universe could be caused and the universe itself not.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Would no evidence not be the perfect evidence for demonstrating that nothing indeed exists?

Human language sometimes succeeds the most when it naturally fails to conform to simple rationality.

So far, yes. If you have nothing in your hands (by evidence of lack of something), is it human language that prevents you to see there may be something in your hands later on in life?

Edit. Could there be something in your empty hands now even though your human intelligence does no yet perceive anything there?

 

[sealchan]

You are assuming there is an edge. Your image is of a universe expanding into space. That is NOT what happens in the Big Bang scenario. Instead, it is space itself expanding. There is no space outside of the universe. It is simply that the space is expanding: distances are getting larger over time.

Butting in...I agree, but what you said still doesn't make sense...there is no practical way to understand the whole Universe as an object of our contemplation that is not riddled with problems of self-reference. If something is getting bigger then it must have "room" to grow.

Mathematically this might make sense but then we have to understand whether math is the ground of being or not.

And I see no reason to think that is the case. You aren't making the distinction between the universe and things inside of the universe. Each thing inside the universe could be caused and the universe itself not.

And again...please excuse me...Experience teaches us that no natural system is closed. It always arises out of another layer of activity even as it contributes to a layer of activity "above" it. The Universe itself, based on our vast scientific knowledge, is probably an outgrowth of some sort of activity outside of the Universe. As a part of that Universe our awareness is naturally limited to our ability to be aware. The Self-Awareness of the Universe within us is, as with any other natural phenomenon, not perfect.

The idea of "Nothing" is a clue to our mythic understanding of the idea of "Everything". Any such complimentary pairs of opposite concepts (such as Nothing-Everything) have the "stink" of the neural basis of human knowledge on them. It is as if our knowledge depended on a neural architecture that makes use of mutually inhibitory neurons associated with each end of the polarity in the pair of opposites themselves. And in nature, no pair of complimentary opposite qualities manifest as a pure expression of either extreme. There is no perfect darkness (virtual particles) nor perfect light (particle-wave duality). No top speed for matter (no matter can go the speed of light) and no perfect point of stillness (special theory of relativity).

The idea that there is a perfect Nothing that is not pregnant with potential or that there is anyway to know the whole of Everything except as being somehow causally born out of something unknown is counter to our understanding of nature and our neural modeling of reality.

We see the Universe through brain colored glasses and those glasses create pairs of complimentary opposites through dynamic neural activity of mutually inhibitory neural interconnections. We can't really see reality any other way.

 

[sealchan]

So far, yes. If you have nothing in your hands (by evidence of lack of something), is it human language that prevents you to see there may be something in your hands later on in life?

Edit. Could there be something in your empty hands now even though your human intelligence does no yet perceive anything there?

That Nothing is pregnant with possibilities...

 

[dybmh]

Gods are anthropomorphisms. That's the whole point of them. A god is a device that humans use to relate to the otherwise unrelatable.

When I first started learning math, I was told: "You can't divide anything by zero."

Then in college I was told: "Yes you can."

When I first started learning math, the details of dividing by zero would have been a distraction.

Was my first math teacher wrong? Yes, but I wouldn't hold it against them. The early lessons about theoretical math were parables. The purpose of those early math classes was to develop a foundation.

 

[Willamena]

Would no evidence not be the perfect evidence for demonstrating that nothing indeed exists?

Human language sometimes succeeds the most when it naturally fails to conform to simple rationality.

No evidence is not evidence.

A lack of evidence, on the other hand, is.

 

[Polymath257]

Butting in...I agree, but what you said still doesn't make sense...there is no practical way to understand the whole Universe as an object of our contemplation that is not riddled with problems of self-reference. If something is getting bigger then it must have "room" to grow.

Mathematically this might make sense but then we have to understand whether math is the ground of being or not.

Yes I understand that this is your intuition, but that intuition is wrong. Remember, that we are looking at the whole of spacetime as a single entity. 'Space' is simply a 'slice' of that entity for a particular time. All that expansion says is that later slices are larger than earlier slices.

An analogy can be found in the latitude lines on the earth. Think about different latitudes as being different *times*, with the south pole the 'Big Bang' and the north pole the 'Big Crunch'. In this scenario, 'space' (meaning the latitude lines', expands as we go north from the south pole until we reach the equator (maximum expansion) and then it shrinks again. But 'space' is not expanding *into* anything, other than the future.

 

[sealchan]

No evidence is not evidence.

A lack of evidence, on the other hand, is.

Is there any evidence that could possibly indicate that Nothing exists?

What sort of lack of evidence would conclusively demonstrate this.

The OP is bullet-proof.

 

[sealchan]

Yes I understand that this is your intuition, but that intuition is wrong. Remember, that we are looking at the whole of spacetime as a single entity. 'Space' is simply a 'slice' of that entity for a particular time. All that expansion says is that later slices are larger than earlier slices.

An analogy can be found in the latitude lines on the earth. Think about different latitudes as being different *times*, with the south pole the 'Big Bang' and the north pole the 'Big Crunch'. In this scenario, 'space' (meaning the latitude lines', expands as we go north from the south pole until we reach the equator (maximum expansion) and then it shrinks again. But 'space' is not expanding *into* anything, other than the future.

To understand often we visualize...your example I have used myself. Imagining the 2-dimensional surface of the Earth curved does explain the "no boundaries" aspect without controversy (so long as the curve isn't noticable), but it doesn't explain the expansion part. The visual analogy relies on our 3-dimensional world to provide perspective.

Now we take a mathematical-logical "leap of faith" (relying heavily on our intuition) by understanding that mathematics has no problem with describing a hyper-sphere with three dimensions of space and one of time. But even then we must either trust math or help ourselves by reasoning intuitively that there must be a 5-dimensional perspective in which some 5-dimensional beings understand our space-time in a matter of fact way...unless they are flat hyper-earthers.

Perhaps more subtly we have to wonder "Does reality conform to mathematics or mathematics conform to reality?" Certainly there are mathematical systems which have no known application to explaining reality. And there are aspects of reality which are not amenable to mathematical treatment whether practically or theoretically.

We are creatures of metaphor, analogy and intuition, especially in our sciences. Mathematics is our drug of choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When I first started learning math, I was told: "You can't divide anything by zero."

Then in college I was told: "Yes you can."

When I first started learning math, the details of dividing by zero would have been a distraction.

Was my first math teacher wrong? Yes, but I wouldn't hold it against them. The early lessons about theoretical math were parables. The purpose of those early math classes was to develop a foundation.

I struggle to see how your post is relevant to the conversation.

(BTW: your first teacher was right. Even in college, you don't divide by zero. You may use a limit to see what happens to an equation as the denominator approaches zero, but right at zero, it's still undefined)

 

[Willamena]

Is there any evidence that could possibly indicate that Nothing exists?

What sort of lack of evidence would conclusively demonstrate this.

The OP is bullet-proof.

There can be no evidence for nothing.

 

[ratiocinator]

To understand often we visualize...your example I have used myself. Imagining the 2-dimensional surface of the Earth curved does explain the "no boundaries" aspect without controversy (so long as the curve isn't noticable), but it doesn't explain the expansion part. The visual analogy relies on our 3-dimensional world to provide perspective.

Now we take a mathematical-logical "leap of faith" (relying heavily on our intuition) by understanding that mathematics has no problem with describing a hyper-sphere with three dimensions of space and one of time. But even then we must either trust math or help ourselves by reasoning intuitively that there must be a 5-dimensional perspective in which some 5-dimensional beings understand our space-time in a matter of fact way...unless they are flat hyper-earthers.

Why would you think intuition is going to do us any good when it comes to the universe? Our intuition has evolved to cope with life on the surface of our planet, with moderate gravity and 'slow' (much less than light) speeds.

Relativity and (even more so) quantum mechanics are highly counter-intuitive yet both have been tested to astonishing levels of accuracy. Most modern technology relies on QM and the GPS relies on relativity. There is no "leap of faith" in mathematics, the confirmation of it is that it works.

It is general relativity that tells us that space can curve and expand and there is no need for anything for it to expand into and no need for a higher dimensional space for it to curve in (it's just a change in the geometry of space-time).

 

[dybmh]

I struggle to see how your post is relevant to the conversation.

(BTW: your first teacher was right. Even in college, you don't divide by zero. You may use a limit to see what happens to an equation as the denominator approaches zero, but right at zero, it's still undefined)

"There are mathematical structures in which a/0 is defined...such as in the Riemann sphere"

Division by zero - Wikipedia

On relevance: There have been a few responses to this thread that bring a more complex clarification to the anthropomorphism of God(s). You said "anthropomorphism... that's the whole point." However, these responses are attempting to say, "no, that's not the whole point." You cited the Nicene Creed as evidence that belief in mainstream Christianity and Catholicism means believing in sky fairies. You implied not believing in sky fairies is fringe.

Texts with anthropomorphic representations of God(s) are similar to math teachers who say "You can't divide by zero." But you actually can. When you divide by zero the answer is usually undefined. In these cases division is possible, but the answer is hard to visualize. But sometimes division by zero is defined. The whole subject is actually very complicated.

Isn't the derivation of the conclusion that dividing by zero is undefined based on the following the process defined as division? This conclusion is reached by dividing by smaller and smaller numbers and plotting the results from this process on a graph? And this leads to the conclusion that the answer is undefined or unreal? So can we agree that we can divide by zero. Saying "You can't divide by zero" is usually true, but it shouldn't be understood as literally true 100%.

And that's why my statement about math is relevant to this discussion. The evidence you are citing to support your claim that believing in God(s) is equivalent to believing in a sky-fairy is a simplified parable similar to what my early math teachers told me about dividing by zero. Maybe you don't mean equivalent 100% literally? Maybe Theists don't believe the anthropomorphic version of God(s) 100% literally either. I think this was presented eloquently in this thread.

In light of the often misunderstood concept of division by zero; the responses detailing a more complicated non-anthropomorphic view of God(s) should be deemed credible.

(edited for spelling)

 

[Bear Wild]

What you outline here is actually the issue with the overuse of the later European-English word "God" in the first place which brings on it's own misconstrued cultural baggage, and is often used to describe many completely different ideas - but that's what you get with a 'once size fits all' English word that doesn't appear in any of these major religious scriptures in their original languages (as obvious as it should be) for the best part of their history. I don't like the word.

Following with my actual reply and not were you're trying to take this. "Sky fairies" or deities, are a complex topic in themselves when removed from superstition or parody. As I said with polytheism, Pagans in general tend to deify nature and worship it.
The image the devote themselves, they don't believe is physically a thing but what it represents to them they believe to be a legitimate force within nature. But of course, Paganism itself aligns more well with the Atheist world view making the Physical universe the absolute, so you should really have no issue with that, right?


.

When you say pagans deify nature and worship it which form of pagan belief are you referring to since the use of the word pagans describes a vast set of beliefs. There are those who use symbolic meanings to deities but to apply to all is a lack of understanding of the different pagan beliefs. The use of Sky Fairies is a confusing term in the context you applied it to and does not equate with the use of god. The connection is confusing. Yes the universe is ultimate but that belief is not specific to atheists and probably does not apply to all pagan beliefs. You need to be careful with superficial assumptions.

 

[Bear Wild]

In honesty, there are no words to describe the distinction. To put it simply, the moment humans put a word to "nothing" it is no longer nothing. It's a word, it's a concept, it's an idea. It represents something and means something. "True" nothingness cannot represent anything. If a word is put to it - or if it is known or understood in any way - it cannot be nothing.

Nothing is a concept and the concept may be something in the human brain but it is still a symbolic representation of opposite of something. This becomes an issue of the limitations of human communication rather than what is or is not. Thus true nothingness or absolute nothingness are using qualifiers to try to distinguish the term nothing as proposed in the concept of what was present before the big bang and concepts like a quantum vacuum.