Where did our Universe come from?


This is a question that many people ponder about increasingly in our time. Of course, it does not have to be worrisome to some others (especially where questions of this nature do not put food on anyone's table. . . or does it.) Religious folk, philosophers, scientists, deists and even atheists have all tried to give it a thought or two between times; and as expected, the answers are as varied as the faces we all carry.

How does such an enquiry affect you as a person?

No matter who you are, and perhaps might have given it a thought or two at some point, can you fathom something coming out of nothing? Is such an idea theoretically possible to be conceptualized? Some deny its possibility; others hold that it is the core of their worldview(s) - I shall not fail to acknowledge also those who have no hard opinions on the question.

If it is possible to fathom the possibility that something could come out of nothing, how would that bear upon your idea of the universe -

       that it began to exist and has not always existed on its own;
       or, that it has always existed on its own and did not begin to exist?

This is one of those questions I had thought about and proposed for discussion as mentioned sometime recently. Others of such kind would follow; but for now - 'something', 'anything', 'out of nothing'. .  or??

Welcome.

@viaro: My answer to this question is kind of two-fold: YES something can come out of nothing, but it depends on how you define "nothing".

If you believe the Universe was spontaneously formed by a random uncontrolled process, then the answer is self-aware, the Universe [at least the very first Universe of sentience] came out of nothing (with reference to the spontaneity). But that leaves us with a question: where did the NOTHING come from? Or what is it NOTHING with respect to?

But if you believe the Universe was called into existence, I will refer to the Creator of the Universe as God. I believe at the onset of all things as they have been, God established an existentiality framework that ENABLED things to possibly exist or NOT exist. Built on that framework, the Universe was able to be brought into existence. So, do you see why I say it was brought out of "nothing" but not really "nothing"?

I sincerely hope you understand my point.

From my experience nothing has come out of nothing, and even when things are created, something is used to create them. So I think all that exists has always existed and always will. parts may combine or interact differently to spawn new entities, but nothing that wasn't already there will ever be there, and nothing will ever be removed.

The Mystery of this existence is what I can call God. The sum total of all existence. I don't know all that exists, so i don't try to conceptualize or even dwell on it. It's a waste of time and energy. But I know existence to be a creative force because that is what i can see and experience. I know nothing else.

my guy krayola! I agree with your post. Just as u said everything that exists has always existed in one form or the other, likewise i will say there are substances that do not exist, and will never exist. I do not refer to things that may yet exist but have not been revealed. I believe all that can exist and all that cannot exist were defined in an existentiality framework of a type. Its like setting up the law before handling a legal proceeding. So, when an invention or discovery is to be birthed, it didnt come out of NOTHING. It comes into existence because an initialization rule had been declared that allows it to exist.

My gist is that the universe appeared because the possibility of its existence had been made to appear earlier on. So it didnt come from nothing, so to speak. The only ultimate source with no source, by my submission, is God, who then made it possible for existence to occur. Or not.

mavenbox:

my guy krayola! I agree with your post. Just as u said everything that exists has always existed in one form or the other, likewise i will say there are substances that do not exist, and will never exist. I do not refer to things that may yet exist but have not been revealed. I believe all that can exist and all that cannot exist were defined in an existentiality framework of a type. Its like setting up the law before handling a legal proceeding. So, when an invention or discovery is to be birthed, it didnt come out of NOTHING. It comes into existence because an initialization rule had been declared that allows it to exist.

My gist is that the universe appeared because the possibility of its existence had been made to appear earlier on. So it didnt come from nothing, so to speak. The only ultimate source with no source, by my submission, is God, who then made it possible for existence to occur. Or not.

I try not to infer anything or draw any conclusions that are not reconcilable with my own personal experience of reality. I could be wrong, and I probably am. I'm just saying that from my own experience, that (what i posted) is what makes sense to me.

YOur post is very interesting though, I have to admit. But if you notice in my post i didn't say universe, I said existence. . .because I don't know for sure that the universe is all that exists. . .for all i know it came out of some other kind of pre-existence or whatever u wanna call it. . .I don't know. haha. i love saying "I don't know". . . it's a very liberating phrase. To me, at least.

lol. Ok krayola. I would also like to say I dont know something or the other because I do not have an active experience therein, but what does knowledge really entail? viaro, pls consider a new thread on epistemiology. Lol

Now, back to this Topic.There's also a fundamental problem. What is NOTHING, really? Even vacuum is SOMETHING called vacuum. So, when we say something has been created from nothing, what do we mean? I think this problem reflects the finite nature of mankind: a child sees a glass empty of water and says it contains nothing, but an elder sibling says it is full of the air in it. So what exactly is nothing?

For the sake of generalization, even though I am a Christian, I will refer to the initial element of existence or sentience as the PRIME MOVER (i.e. For me, God. For some others, that first random occurence that got things going). I proceed.

I think NOTHING once existed, but no longer. It stopped existing when the Prime Mover stepped into action and thus defined existentiality. As such, only existentiality, so to speak, had to be created from nothing.

One may say NOTHING can only be defined at that point immediately prior to the first fruit of existentiality. But with that reasoning, the prime mover who declared the existentiality for non-nothing already existed asides nothing to be able to do so. Thus one may say there has always been NOTHING (else) and apart from the (expectation or preparation of the) prime mover; and NOTHING was the core, base material besides the prime mover, upon which the rules of existence of non-nothings was built by the prime mover.

Impossicant; else it would be something.

Critical thinking . . . DUHHHH

I take that back LOL       .  To avoid wrecking people's homes here, please do take note that if your wife/girlfriend/woman says "nothing" is wrong, you must immediately interpret that as a "something", because if you don't you might end up paying the ultimate price.
This goes to show you how influential and powerful women are.  Their nothings are somethings.  Something does come out of nothing.

No, really.

^^^ #shakes head & rolls eyes#

mavenbox:

^^^ #shakes head & rolls eyes#

laughs and taunts the head-bobbling punjab.

:p

There is no such thing as nothing.  Nothing implies an inexistence . .a lack of something .  . a void so to speak.  Even calling it a void is slightly pushing it.  Even when you think you are doing nothing you are actually doing something, be it breathing, sitting, or even standing.

Maven you said nothing once existed?   Sorry, but that does not make a lick of sense to me.  How do you quantify or qualify that?

A "Prime Mover" or whatever you call it does not arbitrarily appear from a "nothing" (inexplicable) to create and establish an existence.

@Ethanol: No more verbose posts for now.

"nothing" and existentiality are mutually exclusive. If prior to existentiality, NOTHING wasnt, the Prime Mover would have no reason to be a prime mover. Think about it.

God created the Universe,
He made the flowers, the birds of the air,
The animals of the land, sea, oceans, air,
He created the heavenly bodies and the earth and
he created men on earth in his own image to take charge of everything.

mavenbox:

@Ethanol: No more verbose posts for now.

"nothing" and existentiality are mutually exclusive. If prior to existentiality, NOTHING wasnt, the Prime Mover would have no reason to be a prime mover. Think about it.

No, the reverse is the case. They cannot be mutually exclusive. If they had been exclusive, the Prime Mover would have no reason to be a prime mover, since irrespective of the NOTHING that "wasn't", the Prime Mover would still be inclined to move. Reason being that you claim his movement in relation to nothingness are exclusive.

Lol sorry if that was confusing.

no, ethanol, i understand you perfectly but you seem to have misunderstood me or so. Nothing and Existentiality are mutually exclusive because the lack of existence is nothingness and the lack of nothingness means existentiality has occurred. If you say they are not mutually exclusive, that means there is an intersection between the two. Pray tell me, what altogether exists and is also nothing? And why would this entity, quantity or substance nullify the role of the prime mover?

mavenbox:

no, ethanol, i understand you perfectly but you seem to have misunderstood me or so. Nothing and Existentiality are mutually exclusive because the lack of existence is nothingness and the lack of nothingness means existentiality has occurred. If you say they are not mutually exclusive, that means there is an intersection between the two. Pray tell me, what altogether exists and is also nothing? And why would this entity, quantity or substance nullify the role of the prime mover?

Yes, I completely agree that nothingness does imply a lack of existence, as I said before. However, a lack of nothingness did not just come about by way of "nothing", so something must have caused that sudden disappearance of nothingness. This is where the intersection is felt. The Prime Mover itself is that intersection. It would be befuddling to think that the Prime Mover itself also existed ( ) while there was nothing, as this would completely wallop the idea of a "nothing". In short, there was a something all along.


All of this aside, my own argument for God's own "divine existence" is that the existence of God is perfectly independent of time. Time, as we know, is the yard stick for measuring the length of one's "normal" existence. Lol

The ugly question always rears its head, if the prime mover is outside this "nothing" then something has always existed, blows all sorts of possibilities open. But is all this conjecture really important? I think this world has bigger issues to deal with.

Chrisbenogor:

  I think this world has bigger issues to deal with.

Amen to that, my broda.

But the truth is regardless of what the world has to deal with, we'll still be on NL debating stuff. . . so conjecture or no conjecture, the price of rice in China ain't changin. 

^^^ Krayola do you know what that "fixed" price of rice in China is? Okay, off-topic. LOL

@Chrisbenogor and Ethanol: Points taken, sirs. I simply took it as an exercise in abstract logical reasoning. But I don't think my God has a problem with my many usual questions.

@ OP yes according to the laws of physics. . . .Here is a lecture from a physicist who talks about the possiblity for the universe to have come out of nothing. . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]

Chrisbenogor:

The ugly question always rears its head, if the prime mover is outside this "nothing" then something has always existed, blows all sorts of possibilities open. But is all this conjecture really important? I think this world has bigger issues to deal with.

hmm we are going somewhere with this.

mavenbox:

^^^ Krayola do you know what that "fixed" price of rice in China is? Okay, off-topic. LOL

@Chrisbenogor and Ethanol: Points taken, sirs. I simply took it as an exercise in abstract logical reasoning. But I don't think my God has a problem with my many usual questions.

We are under the same Umbrella my sister.
God be with us all.

@mazaje. Is your physicist using betamax? My system isn't picking it up.



ok. . it works now.

stupid question. who did not know that anything and nothing is not something the same thing

mazaje:

@ OP yes according to the laws of physics. . . .Here is a lecture from a physicist who talks about the possiblity for the universe to have come out of nothing. . . .

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]

cool stuff. I actually sat through the whole thing. pretty long tho

Krayola:

cool stuff. I actually sat through the whole thing. pretty long tho

Quite interesting I must say. . . .even though I disagree with a lot of what he says. . .

The lecture by Dr Kraus seems interesting. But the objectivity of his assertions are questionable since he is using his scientific discipline of Theoritical Physics, Astronomy and Cosmology to support his atheistic views. Some theists also do the same thing. Great harm is done to science and "truth" when scientists interpret their data to suit their preconcieved theistic or atheistic beliefs.

In my view, there is nothing in that lecture that says that the universe came from nothing and that should easily be apparent to most people. When you remove all the sensationalism, the lecture is simply saying that what is[b] called nothing is actually not nothing[/b]. It is indeed paradoxical to infer that quatum fluctuations, virtual particles,dark energy as well as dark matter are nothing. Maybe Dr. Kraus should define what he meant by nothing. In addition, it is again intriguing how he thinks that a universe of zero energy is an evidence that the universe came from nothing. What appears to be a flaw in his presentation is that he did not define or describe what he meant by nothing. Is the absence of elementary particles nothing? I do not think so. Is the absence of virtual particles as well as dark energy nothing? I do not think so. As long as man keeps developing and refining his instruments, he will see things even beyound dark energy and virtual particles, there is no end to development and discoveries. This suggests that geting to nothing is unattainable. But is nothing an illusion? I do not think so.

Folks, thanks very much for your contributions. I'd hoped to be online much earlier and make some adjustments in the OP, which perhaps are now unnecessary. Yes, mavenbox in post #5 had anticipated me in moving the motion for a thread to discuss epistemology - good thinking, which would be considered in due course. That said, a few interesting points were made which caught my interest in all posts in this thread, and which might be necessary to sponge up in my subsequent replies and comments.

For now, let me make a few observations from the Youtube vid posted by mazaje.

mazaje:

@ OP yes according to the laws of physics. . . .Here is a lecture from a physicist who talks about the possiblity for the universe to have come out of nothing. . . .

That's brilliant, thank you. This is one of the examples of how scientists are more and more inclining to the belief that the Universe was created, as well that it could have come out of 'nothing'. Perhaps this was what bawolomo might've been referring to sometime when he hinted that KAG seemed to have discussed this possibility on the forum.

As Dr. Krauss noted, scientists had previously believed that the Universe was 'static and eternal': that is, the universe had been around forever and would be around forever (from 5.14min). However, today that notion has changed drastically, as all ideas and interpretations in any human endeavour undergo changes as well.

And a brilliant observation from m_nwankwo who captures my thinking after my watching the vid. 'Great harm is done to science and "truth" when scientists interpret their data to suit their preconcieved theistic or atheistic beliefs', well said and I couldn't have put it better. Krauss notes that anyone could take from the Big Bang theory and use it either way to validate what one believes - theistic or atheistic. That's true, and that's why sometimes it's frustrating to see how people try to drag science into worldviews, whatever that worldview might be.

Krauss makes some interesting opening remarks, such as that the key point in science is 'mystery'; but if he assumes that he could just write off all religions in such a brash manner as he did, he actually knows nothing. Many religious worldviews already know and have held the idea of a 'mystery' about the origin and existence of the Universe, so it's quite ill-mannered for any atheist to make such quips about what they do not know.

And the wonder of it all that both m_nwankwo and I came to just about the same conclusions:

       'In my view, there is nothing in that lecture that says that the universe
       came from nothing and that should easily be apparent to most people.'

Yes sir, it is apparent to me that Dr. Krauss had failed to be convincing. Sad it is that not many people may have observed this, and I wonder why that may be so. Perhaps, it could be that not many of us are equipped to think deep enough to sift through the sensationalism that some of these folks just throw in our faces. Be that as it may, my respects to Krauss for that attempt.

Now, some reasons as to why it seems to me that Dr. Krauss' talk is riddled with holes. Aside the atheistic slant, his talk was interesting. However, as only an observer, I wonder if we're not missing something very essential in the way he tried to handle the subject altogether. My major problem is not a question of whether it is possible for something - anything - to have come out of nothing, for that is a done deal in his talk. Rather, my concern is that there are far too many gaps and leaps in his presentation. His conclusions often leave far more questions than answers. For example, what empirical studies confirm his statement in 16:53min that 'every atom in your body, came from a star that exploded'? He says that is the most amazing thing - and it could be, or not; but to so confidently assert such a thing is just quite an example of the sort of dogmaticism that not many people notice among atheists.

My objections may be immature (and I would admit that), given the fact that I've not read all of Krauss' works on cosmology. Yet, it seems that his presupposition were deliberate to completely leave out any possibility of other considerations out of the equation.

So here are my observations. Please remember that these comments are made only as the concerns of an observer (not a scientist) who himself is very interested in cosmology.

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&[/flash]


1. An 'empty space' in a proton?

I'm no mathematician, but I can hardly resist anything mathematics and numbers. So, when Krauss proceeds in 20:51mins to show "how" something came out of nothing by using a mathematical model of the 'empty space' in the proton, my eyes lit up. The first problem for me, however, was that the proton did not pop into existence on its own, and we could say that the so-called 'empty sapce' in that proton is not empty - otherwise that would not be a proton anymore! That is not to say that such a phenomenon as an 'empty space' in a proton is not discussed among theoretical physicists: yes, they have - and it is not strange to read or hear some of them talk about a swarming sea of quarks 'flickering in and out of existence', as in the excerpt below:

'It has been known since the late 1960s that protons and neutrons are not fundamental
particles but are made from smaller entities: 'the quarks'. At thesimplest level a proton
or a neutron is made up of three quarks but experiments reveal a much more complicated
picture. The strong nuclear force which gluesthe three quarks together also gives rise to
a swarming sea of other quarksflickering in and out of existence. This is what HERA's
electrons study.'¹

Yet, the fact is that its empty space does not demonstrate 'nothingness' but rather takes for granted that at least two elements of our universe are already there: matter and space. Without matter, nothing in those displays would be possible - for that which is 'popping' visibly and invisibly are only showing what the physicist thinks, but not how the origin of the universe proceeds cosmologically from 'nothingness' into 'existence'.

Secondly, the simulation does not avoid the veracity of space-time, for the display itself shows that 3 other properties are taken for granted: space, time, location. Without these 3, it would be impossible to even think of the movement of the simulations, how they proceed from one location where they 'appear' to another location where they disappear - and the time it takes for one simulation to appear and disappear within that space. All these factors are taken for granted in Krauss' talk in that vid and do not tell the observer anything about the two pivotal questions of cosmology:

(a) 'why something rather than nothing?'; and -
(b) 'how does something come from nothing?'

The model only attempts to demonstrate the ideas of the astrophysicist about what is already there; but it does not even come close to showing HOW those things came into existence prior to their nonexistence. These are critical issues that thinkers have to grapple with and not be so easily gulled by atheistic enthusiasts.


______

Notes:

1. Inside the proton - HERA.

1b.  Mathematical simulations in 'empty spaces'

Further, in making the observations above, let me show an example of how the mathematical model in that vid from 20:51mins is not unique in any way as to be convincing for Krauss' conclusions.

Somewhere in another thread I once quipped that anyone could work 'magic' with abstractions in mathematics. Indeed, if you know how to toss mathematical variables and equations around, any kind of image/imagery is possible. . .  I mean, just any kind of image. A few examples would suffice to illustrate this.

At Wired.com is an article about how 'Geeky Math Equation Creates Beautiful 3-D World', linked from the Mandelbulb website, samples of which appear below:

         

         

But, of course, those are just still-life snap shots of the imageries; but the animated forms are exemplified below as well with just about the same effect of showing that images could 'pop in and out of existence' with infinite self-repeating complexity:

       

Those are not the only examples. For anyone who wants to see just about the same way that simulation model in Krauss' talk could be demonstrated, please click on the link below this image to see it in action:

       

       click to see it in action
       tip: move the botton 3/4 to the right to see the blobs
       appear and disappear.


The point in all this is that the example used by Krauss in his talk is not that amazing or convincing. The 'mathematical simulations' can be also be modelled to produced the examples of the 'Mandelbulb' images above, where 2-D mandelbrot set are used to generate infinite and self-repeating complexity. Fractals are very creative mathematical tools which are used to produce these 'simulations'; and as the example just above shows, other simulations could be produced where it appears blobs are 'popping in and out of existence'.

Although we could say that his talk was interesting (and he seems to have repeated that same dry monologue in so many places, in just the same pattern); but frankly, it is old tales in new tunes - nothing he said is novel there that scientists and philosophers have not dwelt upon in the past. Yet, throughout the talk in that vid, it does not appear at all that Krauss had demonstrated any convincing indicators to that enigmatic question. Nada. Zilch. That model fails to score with the question of 'how something could come out of nothing' on its own without any intelligence behind it. It cannot be denied that in all these imageries, there are very involved intelligences behind them - without exception!

@viaro: (digression) When I grow up I want to be like you o, moving stuff like this. LOL