Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Aajj333]

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Its not why are we here, rather the question is why is there a universe in the first place and not nothing at all? And when someone tries to post"the Big Bang" then why did we have it in the first place.

so in other words, why is there a space and a Big Bang and people and rocks rather than absolute nothing. No time. No possibility of a Big Bang. No thinking. Literal nothingness.

I got this question off of this article
http://io9.com/5945801/8-philosophical-questions-that-well-never-solve

[Lost in the Echo]

Well from what I read on the link you gave, I agree with it completely.

Science is not advanced enough to answer questions like "How did we get here?" "Is god real?" "Are we real?" .
We probably will never know the answer to those questions.
As advanced as we are, there are limits to our knowledge.
There are simply things we will never know, and questions we will never be able to answer.

[Magical]

Well from what I read on the link you gave, I agree with it completely.

Science is not advanced enough to answer questions like "How did we get here?" "Is god real?" "Are we real?" .
We probably will never know the answer to those questions.
As advanced as we are, there are limits to our knowledge.
There are simply things we will never know, and questions we will never be able to answer.

How did we get here? abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis), then evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution). Have we been able to create life? Yes (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/).
Is God real? Which God do you mean? The Christian God? Well, if he knows everything then the future is determined, therefore free will doesn't exist. Then the supposed reason people are able to do bad things - God gave us free will - is nonexistant. So he does not know everything. He can't do anything because he can't create a rock so heavy he can not lift it, as he can lift anything. So the Christian God (at least as commonly described) can not exist.
Are we real? Of course. Even if this Universe was all generated by a computer, we would exist in some as a part of the computer's storage.
We can answer those questions.

Now, to the article!
First question, why is there something from nothing? The Big Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang), which arose from quantum fluctuations (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47948831/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/big-bang-didnt-need-god-start-universe-researchers-say/).
Second question has been answered.
Third question, I do not know the answer. That does not mean that humanity does not and will not.
Fourth question has been answered.
Fifth question, is there life after death? Well. If you are dead, you can not come back to life. You begin decaying. So no. You may say a 'soul' carried on and does...something. But we have no proof of this. I will assume that the answer is no until someone actually has some proof of some mechanism that allows us to continue after death.
Sixth question, can we experience anything objectively? No, because as we grow up we gather opinions and bias. Our ways of sensing things are not objective.
Seventh question, what is the best moral system?
Eighth question, what are numbers? They are concepts in our minds.

I can't format this properly D:.

[Lost in the Echo]

How did we get here? abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis), then evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution). Have we been able to create life? Yes (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/).
Is God real? Which God do you mean? The Christian God? Well, if he knows everything then the future is determined, therefore free will doesn't exist. Then the supposed reason people are able to do bad things - God gave us free will - is nonexistant. So he does not know everything. He can't do anything because he can't create a rock so heavy he can not lift it, as he can lift anything. So the Christian God (at least as commonly described) can not exist.
Are we real? Of course. Even if this Universe was all generated by a computer, we would exist in some as a part of the computer's storage.
We can answer those questions.

Now, to the article!
First question, why is there something from nothing? The Big Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang), which arose from quantum fluctuations (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47948831/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/big-bang-didnt-need-god-start-universe-researchers-say/).
Second question has been answered.
Third question, I do not know the answer. That does not mean that humanity does not and will not.
Fourth question has been answered.
Fifth question, is there life after death? Well. If you are dead, you can not come back to life. You begin decaying. So no. You may say a 'soul' carried on and does...something. But we have no proof of this. I will assume that the answer is no until someone actually has some proof of some mechanism that allows us to continue after death.
Sixth question, can we experience anything objectively? No, because as we grow up we gather opinions and bias. Our ways of sensing things are not objective.
Seventh question, what is the best moral system?
Eighth question, what are numbers? They are concepts in our minds.

I can't format this properly D:.

That doesn't answer anything. There are a lot of different sources that say a lot of different things.
Those are just theories. Nothing has been proven.
The sources you gave aren't anymore legit than any other source.

[Dunce]

I think we are here by chance.
The big bang, the right conditions for life, extinctions and evolution. We are not perfect or special, if we had evolved differently we would still be asking these questions. I love to think about them though.

[TheSocialInspector]

Ignorance is bliss.

I tire of wanting to find answers. It's answers everywhere. I want to sit back, relax, and just enjoy the stuff around me. The awesome environment.

How often has the urge to find something, compelled you into great stress? It is no more. For me at least. I want to not know some things. It's better that way. And the truth?

I can't handle the truth.

[Gigablue]

That doesn't answer anything. There are a lot of different sources that say a lot of different things.
Those are just theories. Nothing has been proven.
The sources you gave aren't anymore legit than any other source.

Theories have been proven. A theory refers to a validated hypothesis capable of explaining a phenomenon.

To answer the original question, I don't think our science is good enough at the moment to answer every aspect of the origin of the universe in sufficient detail, but it should become capable in the near future.

I think it's important to define nothing and something more precisely. We don't know if there was nothing before the Big Bang, if there even was such a time, or if there has ever been nothing.

As for something, it's possible that there really isn't any. Many scientists have hypothesized that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero, which explains how the Big Bang could have occurred as the result of a quantum fluctuation. If the universe has energy of zero, the question becomes, is there even "something".

[Magical]

That doesn't answer anything. There are a lot of different sources that say a lot of different things.
Those are just theories. Nothing has been proven.
The sources you gave aren't anymore legit than any other source.

Oh, thanks for legitimising my claim! You evidently still do not understand what a theory is. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and never disproved. Thanks.

The sources, namely....everything, just inform you of things already known by SCIENCE. Scientific consensuses are usually legit.

[Tolso]

Well from what I read on the link you gave, I agree with it completely.

Science is not advanced enough to answer questions like "How did we get here?" "Is god real?" "Are we real?" .
We probably will never know the answer to those questions.
As advanced as we are, there are limits to our knowledge.
There are simply things we will never know, and questions we will never be able to answer.
No, that is not entirely true. Give science enough time, and all the "how" questions will be answered. It's the "why" question we're struggling with.

"Why are we here?" Hmm, I don't know.

"How are we here?" The big bang, later evolution.

[MrDaniel2K13]

There's so may particles in our universe and there's only a limted number of ways the atoms in our body can be arranged so somewhere out there , there is a copy of us

[Tolso]

There's so may particles in our universe and there's only a limted number of ways the atoms in our body can be arranged so somewhere out there , there is a copy of us
Mostly likely not in our universe.

[MrDaniel2K13]

Well probably not in our known universe.

[Human]

I don't know. I've always thought that to be nothing it must be something, as there can't be pure nothing because the nothing must be something to be of nothing...

[Lost in the Echo]

Oh, thanks for legitimising my claim! You evidently still do not understand what a theory is. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and never disproved. Thanks.

The sources, namely....everything, just inform you of things already known by SCIENCE. Scientific consensuses are usually legit.

No, a theory is a thought or idea of what somebody thinks happened.
A theory doesn't have to be tested to be a theory, and a theory can still be a theory, even if it's been disproven.

There are several other legit scientific sources, I personally don't believe what your sources said.

There are only theories of things like "Is humanity real", or "Is god real", shit like that. There is no concrete proof to give a yes or no answer to those questions.

There are a bunch of theories, but truly, nobody has all the answers.

[Horizon]

This is one of those threads that makes my head hurt :p I mean, to be honest, none of us can say for sure what is real and what is not. But we can choose to believe what we want to believe, at the end of the day. So it's a not a matter-of-fact, it's a matter of perception. At least, that's how I see it. :3

[Gigablue]

No, a theory is a thought or idea of what somebody thinks happened.
A theory doesn't have to be tested to be a theory, and a theory can still be a theory, even if it's been disproven.

There are several other legit scientific sources, I personally don't believe what your sources said.

There are only theories of things like "Is humanity real", or "Is god real", shit like that. There is no concrete proof to give a yes or no answer to those questions.

There are a bunch of theories, but truly, nobody has all the answers.

No. You're using the colloquial definition of theory, not the scientific one. Colloquially, it refers to a hunch or educated guess, but not in science. In science it refers to a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested, and never refuted, and which is capable of describing and explaining a phenomenon. While some revisions are made to theories, they are so well established that they will likely never be refuted.

[HowlingSnail]

My theory? Time travel. At some point there must have been nothing, since everything must have a beginning. You can't make something from nothing, therefore the "something" must have come from a place already containing "something". However, there was nothing, therefore the only place with something was the future, therefore time travel is my theory. At some point beings from the future (Whether mortal or omnipotent god) came back in time and created the universe.

And no, I'm not taking the mick, that's my actual theory.

[Steve Jobs]

I don't think our science is good enough at the moment to answer every aspect of the origin of the universe in sufficient detail, but it should become capable in the near future.


But then Science is merely composed of theories and theorems. While we choose to believe those of the more-educated "Scientists" I'm led to believe, based on probability and statistics that for Nature to itself create a living environment like Planet Earth so close to zero, that for such complex organisms like humans, bacteria and animals to exist on its own, near impossible.
It's going to be one big phenomenon to believe that the entire Big Bang was an "uncaused" event that sprung all this life, then later gave us light, Nuclear radiation and degradation, gave us and plants opposite respiratory system.. this could go on..


The idea that God can be eternal leads us to the idea that maybe the universe is eternal, and, therefore, God doesn't need to exist at all. Actually, this was the prevalent belief of atheists before the observational data of the 20th century strongly refuted the idea that the universe was eternal. This fact presented a big dilemma for atheists, since a non-eternal universe implied that it must have been caused. Maybe Genesis 1:1 was correct! Not to be dismayed by the facts, atheists have invented some metaphysical "science" that attempts to explain away the existence of God. Hence, most atheistic cosmologists believe that we see only the visible part of a much larger "multiverse" that randomly spews out universes with different physical parameters.2 Since there is no evidence supporting this idea (nor can there be, according to the laws of the universe), it is really just a substitute "god" for atheists. And, since this "god" is non-intelligent by definition, it requires a complex hypothesis, which would be ruled out if we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon. Purposeful intelligent design of the universe makes much more sense, especially based upon what we know about the design of the universe.

For all we know, there could be more outside the "box". That is, the confines of what Science has led us to believe. Up until more recently we believed in the Solar System, the universe, and in Parallel Dimensions. I don't really know how to explain but heck, it's going to take all eternity to get answers and send probes to every one of these places.

What we do know, there was a beginning.
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem shows that there is no way to get rid of a beginning to any universe that is characterized by cosmic expansion (Hav > 0). Since our universe is characterized by cosmic expansion, it must have had a beginning.

I have a feeling this is going to spark a debate over the religious side of things, but Science does prove its points over evidence we can see in our world today..

[Magical]

No, a theory is a thought or idea of what somebody thinks happened.
A theory doesn't have to be tested to be a theory, and a theory can still be a theory, even if it's been disproven.

There are several other legit scientific sources, I personally don't believe what your sources said.

There are only theories of things like "Is humanity real", or "Is god real", shit like that. There is no concrete proof to give a yes or no answer to those questions.

There are a bunch of theories, but truly, nobody has all the answers.

I had a big post with about five links to the definition of a theory but Gigablue has corrected you once again. Please listen. Stop ignoring everyone who informs you of what a theory actually is.

Oh, OK. So if a source disagrees with you....it's wrong. Nothing that disagrees with your opinion exists. That is unscientific.

[Lost in the Echo]

I had a big post with about five links to the definition of a theory but Gigablue has corrected you once again. Please listen. Stop ignoring everyone who informs you of what a theory actually is.

Oh, OK. So if a source disagrees with you....it's wrong. Nothing that disagrees with your opinion exists. That is unscientific.

I didn't say it was wrong. I just said there are other legit sources.
And nobody corrected me.
I was just giving my thoughts and opinions on the subject.

Humanity does not have all the answers to life's questions.
We are not that advanced yet.

[Gigablue]

But then Science is merely composed of theories and theorems. While we choose to believe those of the more-educated "Scientists" I'm led to believe, based on probability and statistics that for Nature to itself create a living environment like Planet Earth so close to zero, that for such complex organisms like humans, bacteria and animals to exist on its own, near impossible.
It's going to be one big phenomenon to believe that the entire Big Bang was an "uncaused" event that sprung all this life, then later gave us light, Nuclear radiation and degradation, gave us and plants opposite respiratory system.. this could go on..

Science is composed of theories and laws, as well as the scientific method. With those, we can understand the world around us and make accurate predictions. We don't believe theories because of the credibility of the scientists, but rather because of the evidence provided.

Life is unlikely, but there are so many planets our there that its nowhere near impossible. It's like asking "What's the probability of Person X winning the lottery?" vs. asking "What's the probability of someone winning the lottery?" The first is very unlikely, while the second is not.

[CharlieFinley]

God.

[Aajj333]

God.

I actually face palmed when I read this

[Magical]

No. You're using the colloquial definition of theory, not the scientific one. Colloquially, it refers to a hunch or educated guess, but not in science. In science it refers to a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested, and never refuted, and which is capable of describing and explaining a phenomenon. While some revisions are made to theories, they are so well established that they will likely never be refuted.

Theories have been proven. A theory refers to a validated hypothesis capable of explaining a phenomenon.

A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and never disproved.

And nobody corrected me.

I'm done. You.....

You.....are infuriating.

You have been corrected three times on what a theory is in this very thread.

I didn't say it was wrong. I just said there are other legit sources.


You heavily implied that my sources were not legit and wrong because you said you did not believe them and that there were other legit sources.

EDIT: Oh yay - and this is why I hate this section having rep enabled!

-rep: Nobody corrected shit bitch, fuck off. ~Bo

So....can't see the Mars symbol, and not the Venus one... (A bitch being a female dog.)

Can't read Gigablue and I's posts...

[LouBerry]

Well, my opinion is obviously based on my religions beliefs. I believe there is a God. I believe God created the universe for his own pleasure. "He saw what he had made, and it was good." -A quote from Genesis. Maybe He did it for entertainment, or I like to think it's like a musician playing a beautiful and complex piece of music. You lose yourself in the magic of the action.

[Tolso]

The truth is that there is not a reason to everything - necessarily. It's the concept of "nothing to something" that confuses people, and "why" rather than "how".

[CharlieFinley]

I actually face palmed when I read this

Because I have religious beliefs? A theologically accepted argument for the existence of God is that there are precious few other explanations for the cause of the Big Bang.

[Gigablue]

Because I have religious beliefs? A theologically accepted argument for the existence of God is that there are precious few other explanations for the cause of the Big Bang.

Before the Big Bang, space and time did not exist. How could god exist outside of space and time? What does it even mean to exist outside of space and time? More importantly, how do you do anything, such as create a universe, without time? Any action takes time, therefore without it, all actions are impossible.

Also, how did god get there? He must have had a cause, otherwise you are replacing one uncaused event with another.

[CharlieFinley]

Before the Big Bang, space and time did not exist. How could god exist outside of space and time? What does it even mean to exist outside of space and time? More importantly, how do you do anything, such as create a universe, without time? Any action takes time, therefore without it, all actions are impossible.

Also, how did god get there? He must have had a cause, otherwise you are replacing one uncaused event with another.

It would be special pleading to claim that an entity who obeys the dictates of physics could somehow cause the Big Bang, and that's a fallacy. Fortunately, that's not what I'm doing. I'm claiming that an entity who explicitly does not follow the rules of physics, who explicitly requires no cause by virtue of having created the idea of causation, is the one that caused the Big Bang.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

Big Bang and terraformation theories, respectively. Terraformation is the reason there's life on earth, Big Bang is why there's mass, everywhere.

[Gigablue]

It would be special pleading to claim that an entity who obeys the dictates of physics could somehow cause the Big Bang, and that's a fallacy. Fortunately, that's not what I'm doing. I'm claiming that an entity who explicitly does not follow the rules of physics, who explicitly requires no cause by virtue of having created the idea of causation, is the one that caused the Big Bang.

It is a gross violation of Occam's Razor to posit a being beyond the laws of physics and beyond causality, in order to explain the Big Bang. There are much simpler explanations that don't require any supernatural beings. While we don't have a perfect explanation as to how the Big Bang occurred and why, there is no reason to assume we will never have one. If history is a good guide, science will be able to explain it, just like any other well studied phenomenon.

[CharlieFinley]

It is a gross violation of Occam's Razor to posit a being beyond the laws of physics and beyond causality, in order to explain the Big Bang. There are much simpler explanations that don't require any supernatural beings.

Such as the one that requires generalizing time into the complex plane?

[Gigablue]

Such as the one that requires generalizing time into the complex plane?

I'm not familiar with that particular hypothesis, but I think it is simpler. Anything that doesn't require the supernatural is simpler than something that does, as there is no precedent for anything supernatural, or that can transcend time and space.

[CharlieFinley]

I'm not familiar with that particular hypothesis, but I think it is simpler. Anything that doesn't require the supernatural is simpler than something that does, as there is no precedent for anything supernatural, or that can transcend time and space.

Except the idea that something caused an event which by the normal laws of physics and the idea of causality as we understand it should have not just been causeless but uncauseable.

[Magical]

Except the idea that something caused an event which by the normal laws of physics and the idea of causality as we understand it should have not just been causeless but uncauseable.

The issue is that the normal laws of physics do not apply in the extreme conditions of the Big Bang - the tiny amount of space and extreme heat.

[CharlieFinley]

The issue is that the normal laws of physics do not apply in the extreme conditions of the Big Bang - the tiny amount of space and extreme heat.

Which means that just as there was, strictly speaking, no space, there was also no time.

[Magical]

Which means that just as there was, strictly speaking, no space, there was also no time.

There was space, albeit a very small amount of it. As far as I know, time probably began with the Big Bang.

[CharlieFinley]

There was space, albeit a very small amount of it. As far as I know, time probably began with the Big Bang.
There was no space. A singularity does not take up space. But anyway, that's the problem. An underlying principle of the laws of physics and of the scientific method is that everything has a cause.

[Magical]

Linky (http://www.popsci.com.au/science/in-new-quantum-experiment-effect-happens-before-cause)

Everything may have a cause, but the effect can occur first.

Linky (http://astronomyonline.org/Science/QuantumPhysics.asp)

Two of the same quark cannot occupy the same space. This means that the universe could not have had no volume.

(Paragraph after the Fermion table.)

[CharlieFinley]

Linky (http://www.popsci.com.au/science/in-new-quantum-experiment-effect-happens-before-cause)

Everything may have a cause, but the effect can occur first.

Linky (http://astronomyonline.org/Science/QuantumPhysics.asp)

Two of the same quark cannot occupy the same space. This means that the universe could not have had no volume.

(Paragraph after the Fermion table.)
... which would give singularities a definite volume, and therefore a non-infinite density, no? Matter in general cannot occupy the same space as other matter. I believe it's accepted that that breaks down under immense gravitational forces.

In regards to the retrocausality bit, talk to me when you have a source other than a non-peer-reviewed journal making claims like "causality is a quaint notion."

[Irishperson15]

I dont see how this is a valid question. No offence, but i mean the smartest people in our planet have been working on this for years, and nobody knows . . . Some people doubt that we will ever know, others are still trying

[Iris]

You're too busy trying to find meaning where there is none, instead of creating your own meaning.

[CharlieFinley]

Linky (http://www.popsci.com.au/science/in-new-quantum-experiment-effect-happens-before-cause)

Everything may have a cause, but the effect can occur first.

Linky (http://astronomyonline.org/Science/QuantumPhysics.asp)

Two of the same quark cannot occupy the same space. This means that the universe could not have had no volume.

(Paragraph after the Fermion table.) Any day now, I'll get a response.

[Amaryllis]

We exist in the absence of abyss.

That's it. "Nothing" doesn't exist because it can't; nothing still has to have something. Even if it's naked to the human eye, to technology, to foreign creatures, to everything, even if it appears to be oblivion, it isn't. Nothing in itself is something.

[CharlieFinley]

I dont see how this is a valid question. No offence, but i mean the smartest people in our planet have been working on this for years, and nobody knows . . . Some people doubt that we will ever know, others are still trying

That's exactly why it is, in fact, a valid question.

[Irishperson15]

That's exactly why it is, in fact, a valid question.

Yes, I know that, but I meant it is not a valid question here as nobody will be able to give you the answer!!