A Universe from Nothing?

[Corvus]

The net energy cost of the universe is very possibly zero. The positive mass energy of the universe is equal to the negative gravitational energy of the universe. Thus an universe can originate from 'nothing' and still obey the law of conservation of energy. Theoretically. Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

 

[Regolith Based Lifeforms]

What would redshift look like through a FLAT magnifying lens or telescope mirror? There is no such device now that i know of. All of our devices for looking at the distant universe are bowl-shaped sections of perfect spheres. Would a device able to magnify from a completely flat geometry make any difference in how much redshift we see at greater distances?

 

[gnostic]

Seriously gnostic, take a deep breath and read my post slowly with your thinking cap on, I made it clear that I understood you did not accept there was any proof that the universe came from nothing. there was no strawman argument, I agree with you on that point.

Then, I am sorry if I misunderstood that part of your post.

But then you went on to say "we don't know if the universe is eternal or not, we don't know if the universe has a beginning."

Now you can't have your cake and eat it too, if you say categorically that existence did not come from nothing, then it must have always existed. Do you follow the logical reasoning? If there were a beginning, then it had to have come from nothing, for if you claim it came from something, then it is being obtuse for there is no real beginning, just some transformation of existing existence.

What part of "We don't know" that you that you don't understand?

I have made it clear that event BEFORE the Recombination epoch, which is when the oldest light can be detected, is the only thing that we can current detect and measure.

If the Recombination epoch occurred about 13,797,623,000 years ago (out of the Big Bang about 13,798,000,000 years ago), when the CMBR has been detected, then there is no way for to say your eternal universe to be fact.

The only other fact that we know about the universe is that it has been expanding since its infancy stage, before the stars first formed. And the universe is actually expanding at accelerated rate.

I cannot remember if it was in 1970s or 80s, but some scientists have theorised that the acceleration is caused by Dark Energy and Dark Matter, but we have not been able to detect or measure it. All they know is something is pushing the universe, since they have detected no contraction of the universe.

You have no evidences to support eternal universe.

The Big Bang included a number of very early epochs, such as the Planck epoch, Photon epoch, Quark epoch, Lepton epoch, Hadron epoch, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, etc (I haven't them all, here), which have all occurred before the Recombination epoch.

None of these earlier epochs (pre-Recombination epoch) have been verified yet; they have been proven theoretically (mathematically, with equations and models), but they haven't been observed (detected or measured), so we don't known yet if all of the Big Bang cosmology is true.

Your eternal universe model, not only has no detectable evidences, it has not been theoretical proven. So clearly the eternal model is not factual, nor is it scientific.

For me, I am only concern what evidences we do have. The Big Bang model is the only model to have evidences to back it up, but only at the point when the Recombination began.

All other cosmologies are either theoretical or hypothetical...or pseudoscience.

The eternal model, depends on which model you are talking about. There are several versions.

If you think God or Intelligent Designer involved with your own version of the eternal model, then it would be listed under the "pseudoscience" category.

Creationism can never prove, nor verify the existence of the creator or designer, because God is not falsifiable (testable). Until you can detect, quantify or measure god, your model would fall apart.

 

[Willamena]

What part of "We don't know" that you that you don't understand?

...You have no evidences to support eternal universe.

Logic can be evidence. Given the possibility of a beginning or no beginning, if one is eliminated then all that remains is the other.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Then, I am sorry if I misunderstood that part of your post.

Fine, understood.

I have made it clear that event BEFORE the Recombination epoch, which is when the oldest light can be detected, is the only thing that we can current detect and measure.

Understood.

If the Recombination epoch occurred about 13,797,623,000 years ago (out of the Big Bang about 13,798,000,000 years ago), when the CMBR has been detected, then there is no way for to say your eternal universe to be fact.

Understood

The only other fact that we know about the universe is that it has been expanding since its infancy stage, before the stars first formed. And the universe is actually expanding at accelerated rate.

Understood

I cannot remember if it was in 1970s or 80s, but some scientists have theorised that the acceleration is caused by Dark Energy and Dark Matter, but we have not been able to detect or measure it. All they know is something is pushing the universe, since they have detected no contraction of the universe.

Understood

You have no evidences to support eternal universe.

No evidence per se, but logical reason.

The Big Bang included a number of very early epochs, such as the Planck epoch, Photon epoch, Quark epoch, Lepton epoch, Hadron epoch, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, etc (I haven't them all, here), which have all occurred before the Recombination epoch.

Understood.

None of these earlier epochs (pre-Recombination epoch) have been verified yet; they have been proven theoretically (mathematically, with equations and models), but they haven't been observed (detected or measured), so we don't known yet if all of the Big Bang cosmology is true.

Understood.

Your eternal universe model, not only has no detectable evidences, it has not been theoretical proven. So clearly the eternal model is not factual, nor is it scientific.

It is not a model, I am merely pointing out that if something can not come from nothing, then existence is eternal.

For me, I am only concern what evidences we do have. The Big Bang model is the only model to have evidences to back it up, but only at the point when the Recombination began.

Understood

All other cosmologies are either theoretical or hypothetical...or pseudoscience.

Understood.

The eternal model, depends on which model you are talking about. There are several versions.

I am not speaking of any models, I am pointing out the logical conclusion that if existence did not come from nothing, then existence is eternal.

If you think God or Intelligent Designer involved with your own version of the eternal model, then it would be listed under the "pseudoscience" category.

I am not talking about models.

Creationism can never prove, nor verify the existence of the creator or designer, because God is not falsifiable (testable). Until you can detect, quantify or measure god, your model would fall apart.

I am not talking about creation.

So in any response, please avoid any verbiage on matters I said I understood, and concentrate on the remaining matters you question.

 

[PureX]

It is not a model, I am merely pointing out that if something can not come from nothing, then existence is eternal.

Or it came from something. (The logical alternative to nothing.) The question then becomes; "what was that something?" 'Eternity' is not really an issue, yet,

 

[ChristineM]

You have it backwards, existence already exists, and there is no evidence of it ceasing to exist, so one can logically and reasonably assume it has always existed in some form or other. However for those who think existence is finite, the onus is on them to prove that existence first came from non-existence....something from absolute nothing.

Nor is there evidence of it existing prior to the bb, so logically your guess is just a guess. So now you must prove you are not guessing and offer your evidence to science because to date, unlike you, science is honest enough to say " we don't know"

however there is evidence that entropy is increasing and at maximum entropy nothing can exist.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Or it came from something. (The logical alternative to nothing.) The question then becomes; "what was that something?" 'Eternity' is not really an issue, yet,

If it came from something, then logically you are talking about a transformation of one form of existence to another, but existence itself did not have a beginning, so it is eternal. Do you follow?

 

[ChristineM]

Apparently you do as I was just responding to your post to me defending of his potty mouth language.

You think?

Or put another way

You think!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nor is there evidence of it existing prior to the bb, so logically your guess is just a guess. So now you must prove you are not guessing and offer your evidence to science because to date, unlike you, science is honest enough to say " we don't know"

however there is evidence that entropy is increasing and at maximum entropy nothing can exist.

It is not a guess, it is the only logical conclusion, unless you have evidence that something can come from nothing. However I understand that if you believe that something from nothing is a possibility, despite there being no evidence, then it is appropriate to say you don't know.

You do not understand entropy Christine, maximum entropy does not mean that everything becomes nothing. As there is no proof that something can come from nothing, there is likewise no proof that something can turn into nothing. If you think otherwise, provide your evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The net energy cost of the universe is very possibly zero. The positive mass energy of the universe is equal to the negative gravitational energy of the universe. Thus an universe can originate from 'nothing' and still obey the law of conservation of energy. Theoretically. Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

It seems Corvus you are referring to 'nothing' in the relative sense, not in the absolute sense of there being nothing in existence?

 

[gnostic]

Logic can be evidence. Given the possibility of a beginning or no beginning, if one is eliminated then all that remains is the other.

Logic is not evidence.

Logic is still human rationality, which can be wrong, either proven wrong (using counter-logical argument) or refuted through evidences.

Human rationality can be biased, therefore in the long run, it is subjective, not objective.

Let say there are two competing philosophies, where both sides disagree with their rivals. Both sides would attempt to defend their own philosophy, and both used logics.

How would you determine which philosophy is right and the other wrong?

With more logic? Would that even work, considering both groups have invested so much efforts and time with their schools of thought?

Philosophy, like religion, can become too set in their way, that they would refuse to recognise alternatives, becoming dogma.

Science on the other hand, rely on both logic and empirical evidences. The evidences will either debunk any statement or prediction, or it will verify it to be "probably" true.

The more evidences there are, the more probable or improbable is the hypothesis or theory.

Evidences, whether it be finding them or acquiring them, is far more objective than logic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Logic is not evidence.

Logic is still human rationality, which can be wrong, either proven wrong (using counter-logical argument) or refuted through evidences.

Wrong, logical inference as in the example Willamena (and I) provided is 100% conclusive ....."Given the possibility of a beginning or no beginning, if one is eliminated then all that remains is the other."

As someone involved with IT, you must be familiar with Boolean Algebra, computer hardware and software are based on logic circuitry and logic based computations. A or Not A, etc..

So you say back in post#3882....."So let me, make it very clear to you: I DON'T EVER BELIEVE IN NOTHINGNES!!!"

Therefore if 'nothingness' never existed, then it follows that something has always existed.

 

[gnostic]

If it came from something, then logically you are talking about a transformation of one form of existence to another, but existence itself did not have a beginning, so it is eternal. Do you follow?

You do know what science say, don't you?

That everything on Earth - every matters - have their ultimate origin from star dust of debris of red giant stars or supernovas.

But you and I are no longer made out of that dust, that dust no longer exist, because it has been irreversible transformed into cells, genes, tissues and bones.

If what you say about existence is true, then the reverse should be true. Did we exist human exist before the stars?

You can take existence so far, before it become meaningless and utterly useless.

 

[gnostic]

Wrong, logical inference as in the example Willamena (and I) provided is 100% conclusive ....."Given the possibility of a beginning or no beginning, if one is eliminated then all that remains is the other."

It is only conclusive in logic, but without evidences, this logic used in the concept of cosmology is just speculative and baseless.

Although deductive inference have their use, I preferred inductive inference over deductive reasoning, because inductive reasoning require strong evidences, which neither you, nor Willamena have.

 

[Willamena]

Logic is not evidence.

Logic is still human rationality, which can be wrong, either proven wrong (using counter-logical argument) or refuted through evidences.

Human rationality can be biased, therefore in the long run, it is subjective, not objective.

Let say there are two competing philosophies, where both sides disagree with their rivals. Both sides would attempt to defend their own philosophy, and both used logics.

How would you determine which philosophy is right and the other wrong?

With more logic? Would that even work, considering both groups have invested so much efforts and time with their schools of thought?

Philosophy, like religion, can become too set in their way, that they would refuse to recognise alternatives, becoming dogma.

Science on the other hand, rely on both logic and empirical evidences. The evidences will either debunk any statement or prediction, or it will verify it to be "probably" true.

The more evidences there are, the more probable or improbable is the hypothesis or theory.

Evidences, whether it be finding them or acquiring them, is far more objective than logic.

Logic can be evidence, because it's foundation is truthfulness. I am talking about formal logic, not about human rationality, or any particular philosophical theory, or anyone's personal set of philosophical beliefs. Just logic--plain, simple logic.

Logic is "set in its ways," because it has strict rules that, if properly followed, lead to truthfulness. This is universal, the same for everyone, because it was formulated from a study of (literally) how people think. All people, in common. Its rules apply to everyone, objectively.

 

[PureX]

If it came from something, then logically you are talking about a transformation of one form of existence to another, but existence itself did not have a beginning, so it is eternal. Do you follow?

How do we know that existence does not have a beginning? Everything in existence appears to indicate that it does. And yet, how can that be? How can existence come to exist if nothing existed before it, to cause it? It is the great mystery.

 

[Willamena]

How do we know that existence does not have a beginning? Everything in existence appears to indicate that it does. And yet, how can that be? How can existence come to exist if nothing existed before it, to cause it? It is the great mystery.

If "a beginning" refers to something, such as matter, from nothing, such as a complete void, then a mechanism or theory must be in place for such to happen in order that people be able to believe that. Otherwise it's just useless speculation.

Which is when people smile and say, "God."

Which is not adequate for some of us.

 

[Willamena]

How do we know that existence does not have a beginning? Everything in existence appears to indicate that it does.

This is not the case.

A "beginning" is an entirely arbitrary break in a continuous sequence of existing. The moment of "birth," the moment of change from a seed to a flower, the moment of turning the light switch on, and the moment of "death" are all arbitrary--conventions of thought and conveniences of language.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can take existence so far, before it become meaningless and utterly useless.

The reality represented by the concept of existence in the context of my meaning is all that exists now, and in the past, and in the future. What do you find meaningless about that?