The Universe-where did it come from?

[boomerang]

At least part of the problem we have in following theory and evidence pointing to a universe created out of nothing is that the very concept of "nothing" is a human one that does not exist in nature. Not my idea-but lifted form a popular work on cosmology by an author whose name I cannot even recall. But I think this seeming paradox is possibly the result of our tendency to confuse the territory with the map. There may in fact be no such thing as "nothing".

 

[Bananas]

At least part of the problem we have in following theory and evidence pointing to a universe created out of nothing is that the very concept of "nothing" is a human one that does not exist in nature. Not my idea-but lifted form a popular work on cosmology by an author whose name I cannot even recall. But I think this seeming paradox is possibly the result of our tendency to confuse the territory with the map. There may in fact be no such thing as "nothing".

Not to get philosophical or anything, but woldn't there need to be something to observe the nothing, making nothing be something for the observer to exist in making it impossible to verify if nothing exists?

Or maybe I'm just retarded.

 

[Randall]

Those details you call tiny?

We've already covered the basics of planetary formation, so what details are you talking about now?

Yeah, not so tiny. More like huge gaping holes that people like to gloss over. Also, scientific study? Our frame of reference is less than a blink of an eye in stellar terms, what we have observed thus far is a meaningless amount of data in a meaningless amount of time. It's easy to "say with confidence" that the room is empty when all you have is a candle if you're standing in a massive hall. Just because it's the best idea we've come up with means little on that scale.

We've already covered the basics of planetary formation, so what "holes" are you talking about now?

My ultimate point is that we really don't know nearly enough to make such statements.

We've already covered the basics of planetary formation, so what "statements" are you talking about now?

I'm not even suggesting that I have an idea about any of this, because I don't, and I most certainly don't think a "god" had anything to do with.

If you have no "idea about any of this" then perhaps you should reserve your judgement until you do have some idea.

 

[Randall]

At least part of the problem we have in following theory and evidence pointing to a universe created out of nothing is that the very concept of "nothing" is a human one that does not exist in nature. Not my idea-but lifted form a popular work on cosmology by an author whose name I cannot even recall. But I think this seeming paradox is possibly the result of our tendency to confuse the territory with the map. There may in fact be no such thing as "nothing".

Nothingness is simply the absence of existence. That's not too difficult to grasp. But I think I like your "confuse the territory with the map" point. Can you elaborate on that some more just so that I'm clear on what you're getting at?

 

[Randall]

Not to get philosophical or anything, but woldn't there need to be something to observe the nothing, making nothing be something for the observer to exist in making it impossible to verify if nothing exists?

Or maybe I'm just retarded.

Nope. Not retarded at all. It reveals the need for us to provide context in order to acquire meaning.

 

[Bananas]

We've already covered the basics of planetary formation, so what details are you talking about now?

Why does gravity exist? Why are orbits relatively stable, by that I mean what's the counter for the sun? If that's the way planets form, why did nothing form in the asteroid belt, why isn't there a planetary body hurdling through there right now, growing? Why did so many moons form around the gas giants, and not simply merge with them? More to the point, why did gas giants form in the first place? How do we know for certain what's in the atmosphere of gas giants?

It's not what I'm talkig about now, it's what I've talked about from the beginning, you're the one who decided what to reply, not me.

If you have no "idea about any of this" then perhaps you should reserve your judgement until you do have some idea.

I meant that I have no idea about the spcifics, those tiny details that seem irrelevant to you.

 

[Charlie Prime]

Not to get philosophical or anything...

Don't apologize. The Creationist idea that something can come from nothing is not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question.

By definition, Science must follow the Scientific Method, or it's not Science. Exotic mathematics are not Science. At a certain point the math crosses over into the realm of epistemology, which is a form of philosophy, not Science.

 

[Randall]

Why does gravity exist?

Now you're moving the goalpost. Questions about how, what, when and where things happen are a different class of questions from why they happen. The first set deals with the mechanics of things in a purely objective context, whereas questions about why tend to imply a subjective context linked to conscious intention, and therefore the question, "Why does gravity exist?" is a loaded question because it assumes that there was some conscious intent in bringing gravity into existence, and that in-turn implies a creator who had a purpose for it.

I won't go as far as Dawkins and say that "why type questions" are "silly". Sometimes we can answer them in terms or cause and effect, but unless the context is clear, questions about why, particularly in these kinds of discussions can constitute an informal fallacy, and when they do, they may become irrelevant within the context that the discussion was initiated, which is why I started out by saying you're moving the goalpost. If you want to move out of the how we know things and into the whys of existence, then that's a whole different discussion.

Why are orbits relatively stable, by that I mean what's the counter for the sun? If that's the way planets form, why did nothing form in the asteroid belt, why isn't there a planetary body hurdling through there right now, growing? Why did so many moons form around the gas giants, and not simply merge with them? More to the point, why did gas giants form in the first place? How do we know for certain what's in the atmosphere of gas giants?

Here's another video that might help you get a grip on basic astronomy. In it you'll find explanations for such things as how the planets, including gas giants form:

How Planets Work

 

[Bananas]

What I meant was that why does mass generate gravity, the mechanics of it. What makes mass generate gravity. The answer is "we don't know". Thats a pretty big fucking hole in knowledge.

As for that video... sigh. If I asked what do they base this stuff on, the answer would be "conjecture based on guesswork". Which was my original point. Even in the damn video they state that they don't know what gas giants actually are deep down, but they know how they formed? In what universe does that make any sense? You don't know what it is, but you know how it got there? Really?

 

[Decker]

This morning I was scanning my sites via my cell phone and I noticed that this thread suddenly exploded (which btw, I thought was great) and when Vicki came out we were discussing the link that I placed here on what may be the creation of the visible universe. She told me that such concepts she finds rather hard to wrap her mind around but in the upshot .. " it is what it is " which wrapped it up for her. I made the remark that I believe our lack of true knowledge is .. probably beyond what we can grasp. I also noted that if we truly "knew" how little we really know ... we would all be terrified. And so it goes ...

Decker

 

[Randall]

What I meant was that why does mass generate gravity, the mechanics of it. What makes mass generate gravity. The answer is "we don't know". Thats a pretty big fucking hole in knowledge.

The fundamental forces of nature are a mystery. However that's not how this discusson started. I'm dealing with the claim you made here, to quote: "The whole notion that we understand anything about space is foolish, it's conjecture based on quesswork." Clearly we understand a lot of things and what we do understand isn't based on guesswork. I've shown you this now using some good examples. So cherry picking things we haven't yet explained doesn't make your claim any stronger. I think you should consider revising your statement.

As for that video... sigh. If I asked what do they base this stuff on, the answer would be "conjecture based on guesswork". Which was my original point. Even in the damn video they state that they don't know what gas giants actually are deep down, but they know how they formed? In what universe does that make any sense? You don't know what it is, but you know how it got there? Really?

Not exactly. Your claim was, "The whole notion that we understand anything about space is foolish, it's conjecture based on quesswork." Clearly the video indicates that although we understand quite a lot, we don't know everything, and that hypothesises about what we don't know aren't based on guesswork, but on extrapolation from what we do know. I suggest that the statement you made that kicked this off was perhaps meant as a playful way of generating some discussion, and I think it has served it's purpose. But I certainly wouldn't advise that anyone seriously incorporate it into their worldview.

 

[Randall]

This morning I was scanning my sites via my cell phone and I noticed that this thread suddenly exploded (which btw, I thought was great) and when Vicki came out we were discussing the link that I placed here on what may be the creation of the visible universe. She told me that such concepts she finds rather hard to wrap her mind around but in the upshot .. " it is what it is " which wrapped it up for her. I made the remark that I believe our lack of true knowledge is .. probably beyond what we can grasp. I also noted that if we truly "knew" how little we really know ... we would all be terrified. And so it goes ...

Decker

Vicki isn't alone. It's perfectly normal for the average person ( including me ) not to be competent with the math. But she might be comforted to know that neither is it necessary to be a math wiz. All that the average person needs to understand about mathematical models is that they are abstract and may or may not be capable of actually existing. In this case the article talks about our universe coming into existence out of another one, and that it isn't too hard to imagine.

The simplest way to describe it ( and I'm sure you and Vicki would get this ) is to think of the classic hourglass where the sand at the top is the matter in the "higher" universe and the tiny constriction where the sand falls through is the black hole. As the sand from the top ( universe ) enters the area near the opening between the top and bottom ( event horizon ) it soon slips through the opening ( black hole ) from the "higher" universe into the "lower" universe below. The math is just a way of representing that geometry in the context of a hypothetical other universe connected by the presence of a black hole common to both.

 

[Bananas]

Or, our universe may exist within a supermassive blackhole at the center of a galaxy in another universe. I've heard that idea somehwere too. (And further, that every supermassive blackhole has a universe within it till infinity)

 

[Bananas]

Not exactly. Your claim was, "The whole notion that we understand anything about space is foolish, it's conjecture based on quesswork." Clearly the video indicates that although we understand quite a lot, we don't know everything, and that hypothesises about what we don't know aren't based on guesswork, but on extrapolation from what we do know. I suggest that the statement you made that kicked this off was perhaps meant as a playful way of generating some discussion, and I think it has served it's purpose. But I certainly wouldn't advise that anyone seriously incorporate it into their worldview.

The issue I take with that, is that how do you test these theories to the point that it can be called knowledge? I've probably worded my replies poorly, I do that, a lot. I don't take issue with the theories themselves, they are probably true, but how do you test them?

 

[Randall]

The issue I take with that, is that how do you test these theories to the point that it can be called knowledge? I've probably worded my replies poorly, I do that, a lot. I don't take issue with the theories themselves, they are probably true, but how do you test them?

We have sent physical space-probes to some of them that take readings and samples and then transmit the results back to us. Plus there are other detection methods we can do from Earth. For example we can use spectroscopy ( intro here ). BTW, your questions are actually very good and so is your skepticism about science. As much as I am a proponent of science, I'm also among the first here to point out that there are times when scientists seem to be relying on a faith in their hypothesises that isn't much different from those who rely on religion. For example when they talk about Dark Matter and Dark Energy ( see this post ).

 

[boomerang]

I was attempting to address the question from a physical as opposed to a philosophical point of view. But this is not completely possible. "Nothing" is undoubtedly a very real aspect of everyday existence and we have no problem with its macro validity.

In attempting to model and visualize our universe arising from "nothing" is where philosophy/religion and scientific research may collide. Most of us here are probably familiar with evidence that matter continually pops into and out of existence within an otherwise perfect vacuum. I believe this has been experimentally verified as the Casimir effect.

Casimir effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it would seem logical to assume that, like so many things at the subatomic level, common sense fails us. So I see no basis for religious or philosophical objections to a universe arising out of "nothing" in light of what we can say about the existence of zero point energy "produced" from the very fabric of space-time.

But I think I like your "confuse the territory with the map" point. Can you elaborate on that some more just so that I'm clear on what you're getting at?

This is a phrase I lifted from the writings astronaut Edgar Mitchell in attempting to describe the way in which he sees mind and matter interact. It's really just another way of saying that human cognitive models are not reality, but rather maps of reality. Confusing the two often results in the human tendency to believe that "what we see is what we get", when in fact science based solely on the subject/object paradigm may be inherently flawed. So in this case, the human concept of "nothing" is the map while the territory is much stranger and more complex. I think Mitchell does a good job of advancing such views in his book, "The Way Of The Explorer".

 

[Charlie Prime]

Most of us here are probably familiar with evidence that matter continually pops into and out of existence within an otherwise perfect vacuum.

That is not an example of something coming from nothing.

 

[Randall]

That is not an example of something coming from nothing.

Can you elaborate? I'm not as familiar with the evidence as I should be. By evidence, I mean physical experiments rather than mathematical models. What experiments have shown matter popping in or out of existence and how do they know where the matter came from?

 

[Charlie Prime]

That's just it. Something doesn't come from nothing.

 

[Randall]

That's just it. Something doesn't come from nothing.

That depends on how you define "nothing". It's all a matter of context. For example what is the result of a computer program before it's run? The answer isn't zero because zero would be a result, and that can't be the case yet because no operations have actually been performed. However there still remains the possibility that a result could come into existence. So within that frame of reference, if someone were to come along and ask what the results of the program were before it had been run, we could say "Nothing. It hasn't been run yet.", and we would be entirely correct. Now let's suppose that the program in question is one that is run on some vastly powerful computing system, and for the sake of argument we'll call it "universe_01.exe".

The power is turned on and the program is loaded and made ready for launch, but until it is launched, our virtual universe still only exists as a possibility and is therefore still in a state of nothingness. We can imagine that the screen or virtual environment is completely blank. But when we hit the Enter key the program is set in motion, operational cycles begin, and as soon as the first one is complete, what happens? Out of the nothingness we had only moments before is born a new virtual universe. If we were given the opportunity to observe this birth from a point of view inside the virtual construct, it would seem as though this new universe had indeed come from nothing. How do we know that this situation is not exactly the case for the universe in which we presently inhabit? The answer is: We don't.

Cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation (Wired UK)