The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

What sorta thing was energy before it became a matter type thing?

When you say thing you at least as far as I know you are referring to matter, the stuff around us, be it visible or not. Energy though and again this is as far as I know refers to what those things have. Energy is a relation of matter to what is around it, hence potential and kinetic energy. So when you say thin my mind thinks of matter when you say energy I think of what matter can do.

That's how I learned it but maybe I'm wrong ::

 

[Thief]

When you say thing you at least as far as I know you are referring to matter, the stuff around us, be it visible or not. Energy though and again this is as far as I know refers to what those things have. Energy is a relation of matter to what is around it, hence potential and kinetic energy. So when you say thin my mind thinks of matter when you say energy I think of what matter can do.

That's how I learned it but maybe I'm wrong ::

At what point does willfulness step in?

We know that it has....here we are.

Most forms of energy move quite well and there is often cause to step aside.
But do you then reason that energy is greater than you are?

Though the extent of your influence is small at this hour doesn't mean the increase will never be yours.

Or perhaps you have no expectation, at all.

 

[idav]

When you say thing you at least as far as I know you are referring to matter, the stuff around us, be it visible or not. Energy though and again this is as far as I know refers to what those things have. Energy is a relation of matter to what is around it, hence potential and kinetic energy. So when you say thin my mind thinks of matter when you say energy I think of what matter can do.

That's how I learned it but maybe I'm wrong ::

That is correct but I'm wondering about what the substance of the universe was before matter formed. When the big bang happened matter didn't exist until millions of years later once the "stuff" cooled to the point that it could form to matter. So I see energy as what matter was before it cooled down some time after the big bang. So then the question is, what is the "stuff" of the big bang that wasn't matter? Before even Hydrogen existed there was still something.

 

[1robin]

It's not any trouble it's just incorrect to say that energy is a thing of course you seem to be using "thing"in a strange way. when scientist use energy they are talking about a property that is given due to the attributes that a thing has. Matter are things, and energy is what those things will have.

I explained this equivocation does not matter. It will never get you a universe. If energy is an abstract concept concerning potential differences in capacity to do work, it is creatively impotent. I am allowing that energy can be thought of as simply a concept because it will not make any difference to the actual argument. I do not think that is a comprehensive way to think of energy but it will not affect anything.

Electrical energy come in the form of electrons and their attraction to a poll.
laser energy comes in photons.
Directed energy weapons direct something not nothing.
Utilities charge us for supply energy in the form of a thing.
The quantum concerns changes in energy fields. Concepts do not fluctuate and never produce anything.

However thing or concept you are not getting anything brought into existence with it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

At what point does willfulness step in?

We know that it has....here we are.

Most forms of energy move quite well and there is often cause to step aside.
But do you then reason that energy is greater than you are?

Though the extent of your influence is small at this hour doesn't mean the increase will never be yours.

Or perhaps you have no expectation, at all.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

No one does.

I think I will write a program one day to mimic his writing. It's just pick his favorite words and randomly put them out there with a bunch of periods in between.

 

[shawn001]

That is correct but I'm wondering about what the substance of the universe was before matter formed. When the big bang happened matter didn't exist until millions of years later once the "stuff" cooled to the point that it could form to matter. So I see energy as what matter was before it cooled down some time after the big bang. So then the question is, what is the "stuff" of the big bang that wasn't matter? Before even Hydrogen existed there was still something.

Some of this is a little off as we have learned a few things since it was written.

However

"There was no carbon, when the universe began in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. It was so hot, that all the matter would have been in the form of particles, called protons and neutrons. There would initially have been equal numbers of protons and neutrons. However, as the universe expanded, it would have cooled. About a minute after the Big Bang, the temperature would have fallen to about a billion degrees, about a hundred times the temperature in the Sun. At this temperature, the neutrons will start to decay into more protons. If this had been all that happened, all the matter in the universe would have ended up as the simplest element, hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of a single proton. However, some of the neutrons collided with protons, and stuck together to form the next simplest element, helium, whose nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons. But no heavier elements, like carbon or oxygen, would have been formed in the early universe. It is difficult to imagine that one could build a living system, out of just hydrogen and helium, and anyway the early universe was still far too hot for atoms to combine into molecules.

The universe would have continued to expand, and cool. But some regions would have had slightly higher densities than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra matter in those regions, would slow down their expansion, and eventually stop it. Instead, they would collapse to form galaxies and stars, starting from about two billion years after the Big Bang. Some of the early stars would have been more massive than our Sun. They would have been hotter than the Sun, and would have burnt the original hydrogen and helium, into heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and iron. This could have taken only a few hundred million years. After that, some of the stars would have exploded as supernovas, and scattered the heavy elements back into space, to form the raw material for later generations of stars.

Life in the Universe - Stephen Hawking

There was a "battle" betweeen anti matter and matter and matter won out.

They think a particle of antimatter, can't remember the name of it right now decays faster then its matter counterpart.

The Higg's might help figure out why matter has mass.


Just FYI

ScienceAtNASA
Tour of the Electromagnetic Spectrum

Tour of the Electromagnetic Spectrum - YouTube

You can convert energy to matter and matter to energy.

 

[1robin]

Unless one regards "the universe" as encompassing an infinite regression into the past, including any possible era before the BB, one can't say anything about "the beginning." So as a matter of conversational convenience and rationally I believe it best to limit the universe's extent from the BB forward. It's existed for 13.798±0.037 billion years, and may extend X number of years into the future

The only thing that is needed to be known is that it had a beginning. It came into existence. That is exactly what is claimed by the most prominent cosmological models in modern science. That is all that is necessary to validate the cosmological argument and exactly what the Bord, Guth, Vilenkin theorem was designed to show.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The only thing that is needed to be known is that it had a beginning. It came into existence. That is exactly what is claimed by the most prominent cosmological models in modern science.

Could you provide a quote and source of any cosmologist who has stated that the universe "came into existence"?

 

[Thief]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Equating energy to spirit?....only if it thinks.

Now granted...thinkig as we know it would be very physical and our thoughts can be difficult to manage with our chemistry gone astray....but...

That's not to say our minds remain confuse after the chemistry fails.

Death could be a very enlightening experience!
The clarity of thought could be....really clear!

 

[Thief]

No one does.

I think I will write a program one day to mimic his writing. It's just pick his favorite words and randomly put them out there with a bunch of periods in between.

Start such a thread in the game section....it could be fun.
Who is Thief?

 

[1robin]

Could you provide a quote and source of any cosmologist who has stated that the universe "came into existence"?

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

- See more at: Craig on Vilenkin on Cosmic Origins

The reason I supplied Vilenkin's quotes is as follows:

In sum, I think you can see how misleading the physicists’ statements to you were. The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.

Read more: Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe | Reasonable Faith


I hope semantics will not be employed to try and claim Vilenkin did not mean exactly what he said.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Considerations:
1) Vilenkin doesn't believe there is any "the universe" that could have a beginning
2) You link to an atheist blog (commendable) for balance regarding Craig's use of Vilenkin. However, we don't need any source but Craig to castigate and criticize Vilenkin:

You've read simplifications of stuff like Craig's work. It's told you that you can't reach any point by going back in time if time is eternal. You've even cited Craig's use of Vilenkin in Craig's popular works, despite the fact that in his technical work (including a review of Vilenkin's Many Worlds in One) Craig castigated Vilenkin for referring to "eternal inflation" and infinitely many universes, his dismissal of god or the need of any creator. Criag writes "Although Vilenkin observes that "Inflation is eternal in practically all models suggested so far...." in none of his popular articles does he ever suggest that Vilenkin posits anything more than an absolutely confirmed beginning of time.

3) When you can tell me which universe Vilenkin believes "had a beginning" in accordance with his research (e.g., Garriga, J., & Vilenkin, A. (2008). Prediction and explanation in the multiverse. Physical Review D, 77(4)), perhaps this might be more meaningful.

With the proof now in place

1) It isn't a proof. It involves proofs.
2) Can you provide the proofs that you refer? Obviously I wouldn't ask for anything prior to
Borde, A., Guth, A. H., & Vilenkin, A. (2003). Inflationary spacetimes are incomplete in past directions. Physical review letters, 90(15)

but it would be nice if you could demonstrate how boundaries work not in terms of "time' (which Vilenkin doesn't) but both spacetime and the origins of spacetime.

cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.

They can, however, determine that such a possibility isn't just impossible but is meaningless in multiple ways.

There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

Which is a contradiction in terms.

Craig on Vilenkin on Cosmic Origins

Craig has a longer review of Vilenkin he writes for the non-specialist audience he can't lie to as easily in which he extensively criticizes Vilenkin and does so not for Vilenkin's actual research but for a popular science book simplified for the layperson. Craig uses Vilenkin when manipulating a poorly informed audience and abuses him when he attempts to address his peers.

In sum, I think you can see how misleading the physicists’ statements to you were

Alternatively, you could try actually reading physics literature rather than rely on quote-mined simplifications from interviews and similar methods in which scientists are asked questions and the simplest and most sensationalist of these are picked for inclusion in some popular science article. You may find a rather significant difference.

The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever

You do realize that neither Borde, Guth nor Vilenkin support the standard model, correct?

"Inflationary models of cosmology yield a rather different picture of the full present Universe (as opposed to the part of it that we can directly observe) than that given by the standard big bang cosmology."
Borde, A., & Vilenkin, A. (1994). Eternal inflation and the initial singularity. Physical Review Letters, 72(21)

The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science.

Guth, A. H. (2000). Inflation and eternal inflation. Physics Reports, 333, 555-574.

I hope semantics will not be employed to try and claim Vilenkin did not mean exactly what he said.

How about using what Vilenkin wrote instead of quote-mined statements by Craig and similar dishonest sources (I have great respect for many an apologist, C. S. Lewis for reasons of fondness and an Einstein-like ability to render the simple into the meaningful, Kreeft for replacing him in some sense, Plantinga for his technical nuances, etc., but Craig is the Ehrman of apologists- saying one things to a mainstream audience while contradicting himself when writing to those he can't mislead).

 

[camanintx]

1. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.

This proposition is only valid if one considers the universe itself to be contingent. While everything inside our universe is contingent upon something else, the universe itself must exist by necessity. Otherwise there would be no "you" to consider it's non-existence. You try to get around this by assuming the supernatural exists, but you have no evidence that such a thing exists.

 

[1robin]

This proposition is only valid if one considers the universe itself to be contingent. While everything inside our universe is contingent upon something else, the universe itself must exist by necessity. Otherwise there would be no "you" to consider it's non-existence. You try to get around this by assuming the supernatural exists, but you have no evidence that such a thing exists.

That is the one thing the universe CANNOT do. It can't be necessary. I made no composition claims so no composition fallacy exists in my claims. Natural infinites are not possible. There are mountains of evidence the supernatural exists but it was not my intent to provide it. My intent was to show the universe began to exist and CANNOT have a natural cause (at least that can be shown to be valid currently). I only have two options the natural and something independent of the natural. If I must eliminate the natural I only have the non-natural as a possibility. It is not just that there are no known natural explanations for the natural. It is also true no known possibility exists for natural infinites. I am not a mathematician ( I am more of an engineer) but my degree is in math. IN almost every case the infinite is a boundary asymptotic value that functions approach but can never reach. It cause mathematic chaos to employ infinites and the results are mathematical absurdities. I have shown the most prevalent (by far) models in cosmology posit a universe that began to exist. BY universe I mean all natural laws and entities. So can you supply a natural explanation for the creation of all natural entities? If not, what besides that non-natural is left. BTW Vilenkin shows that all major counter naturalistic explanations (oscillating models, the quantum, cracked eggs, etc...) are impossible. So you might want to begin by reviewing his claims. I am not positing certainties, I am positing what all the evidence suggests is the only possible conclusion.

 

[shawn001]

That is the one thing the universe CANNOT do. It can't be necessary. I made no composition claims so no composition fallacy exists in my claims. Natural infinites are not possible. There are mountains of evidence the supernatural exists but it was not my intent to provide it. My intent was to show the universe began to exist and CANNOT have a natural cause (at least that can be shown to be valid currently). I only have two options the natural and something independent of the natural. If I must eliminate the natural I only have the non-natural as a possibility. It is not just that there are no known natural explanations for the natural. It is also true no known possibility exists for natural infinites. I am not a mathematician ( I am more of an engineer) but my degree is in math. IN almost every case the infinite is a boundary asymptotic value that functions approach but can never reach. It cause mathematic chaos to employ infinites and the results are mathematical absurdities. I have shown the most prevalent (by far) models in cosmology posit a universe that began to exist. BY universe I mean all natural laws and entities. So can you supply a natural explanation for the creation of all natural entities? If not, what besides that non-natural is left. BTW Vilenkin shows that all major counter naturalistic explanations (oscillating models, the quantum, cracked eggs, etc...) are impossible. So you might want to begin by reviewing his claims. I am not positing certainties, I am positing what all the evidence suggests is the only possible conclusion.

Lawrence Krauss On 'A Universe From Nothing'

"But, you know, it's more than that because some people would say, and I've had this discussion with theologians and others, well, you know, just empty space isn't nothing. You know, there's space. How did the space get there? But the amazing thing is, once you apply in fact quantum mechanics to gravity, as you were beginning to allude again in the last segment, then it's possible, in fact it's implied, that space itself can be created where there was nothing before, that literally whole universes can pop out of nothing by the laws of quantum mechanics."

"And in fact the question why is there something rather than nothing then becomes sort of trite because nothing is unstable. It will always produce something. The more interesting or surprising question might be why is there nothing. But of course if we ask that question, well, we wouldn't be here if that was true."

"http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing"


"There are mountains of evidence the supernatural exists but it was not my intent to provide it."

LOL, there is? Are they falsifiable tests and observations for this evidence?

 

[1robin]

Lawrence Krauss On 'A Universe From Nothing'

"But, you know, it's more than that because some people would say, and I've had this discussion with theologians and others, well, you know, just empty space isn't nothing. You know, there's space. How did the space get there? But the amazing thing is, once you apply in fact quantum mechanics to gravity, as you were beginning to allude again in the last segment, then it's possible, in fact it's implied, that space itself can be created where there was nothing before, that literally whole universes can pop out of nothing by the laws of quantum mechanics."

"And in fact the question why is there something rather than nothing then becomes sort of trite because nothing is unstable. It will always produce something. The more interesting or surprising question might be why is there nothing. But of course if we ask that question, well, we wouldn't be here if that was true."

"http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing"


"There are mountains of evidence the supernatural exists but it was not my intent to provide it."

LOL, there is? Are they falsifiable tests and observations for this evidence?

Anyone but him. I had heard his name as a formidable debater but had never seen him debate. I finally downloaded a debate transcript. In the first few paragraphs he claimed 2 + 2 equals 5 and had a t-shirt stating this made, and the sum of all integers from 0 to infinite was 1/12. I blacked out and could read no further. Now if you still value my evaluation of Krauss's claims let me know and I will provide it.

 

[shawn001]

I think he has the credentials you don't have in Cosmology and QM theory.


Nor is he the only one thinking this through as is stated in the article.


Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss is an internationally known theoretical physicist with wide research interests, including the interface between elementary particle physics and cosmology, where his studies include the early universe, the nature of dark matter, general relativity and neutrino astrophysics. He has investigated questions ranging from the nature of exploding stars to issues of the origin of all mass in the universe. He was born in New York City and moved shortly thereafter to Toronto, Canada, where he grew up. He received undergraduate degrees in both Mathematics and Physics at Carleton University. He received his Ph.D. in Physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1982), then joined the Harvard Society of Fellows (1982-85). He joined the faculty of the departments of Physics and Astronomy at Yale University as assistant professor in 1985, and associate professor in 1988. In 1993 he was named the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Professor of Astronomy, and Chairman of the department of Physics at Case Western Reserve University. He served in the latter position for 12 years, until 2005. During this period he built up the department, which was ranked among the top 20 Physics Graduate Research Programs in the country in a 2005 national ranking. Among the major new initiatives he spearheaded are included the creation of one of the top particle astrophysics experimental and theoretical programs in the US, and the creation of a groundbreaking Masters Program in Physics Entrepreneurship. In 2002, he was named Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case."

"Prof. Krauss is the author of over 300 scientific publications, as well as numerous popular articles on physics and astronomy. He is the recipient of numerous awards for his research and writing, including the Gravity Research Foundation First Prize Award (1984), and the Presidential Investigator Award (1986). In February 2000, in Washington D.C., Krauss was awarded the American Association for the Advancement of Science's 1999-2000 Award for the Public Understanding of Science and Technology . Previous awardees include Carl Sagan (1995) and E.O. Wilson (1994). In 2001 he was awarded the Julius Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society . The citation reads "For outstanding contributions to the understanding of the early universe, and extraordinary achievement in communicating the essence of physical science to the general public". Previous awardees include Stephen W. Hawking (1999), and Kip S. Thorne (1996). In 2001 the American Institute of Physics awarded Krauss the Andrew Gemant Award , given annually to "a person who has made significant contributions to the cultural, artistic, or humanistic dimensions of physics". Previous awardees include Freeman Dyson, Steven Weinberg, and Stephen Hawking. He was also awarded the American Institute of Physics Science Writing Award in 2002 for his book "Atom". In August of 2003 it was announced that Krauss had been awarded the Oersted Medal , the highest award of the American Association of Physics Teachers, for his contributions to the teaching of physics. Previous awardees include Richard Feynman, I.I. Rabi, Edward Purcell, and Hans Bethe. With this award, he becomes the first physicist to have been awarded these three most prestigious awards from the APS, the AIP, and the AAPT. In 2005 he was also awarded the Joseph P. Burton Forum Award from the American Physical Society for his work on issues of science and society."

Read more

Biography | Lawrence Krauss


Did God create the universe?

Curiosity Videos: Did God create the universe? - Curiosity


Explore the question of what could cause the spontaneous appearance of a universe with Stephen Hawking in this Curiosity video.

Curiosity: Something of Nothing : Video : Discovery Channel


QM, provides a possible explanation how the universe came to be naturally. I don't think you understand how that could be yet.

Still on this

"There are mountains of evidence the supernatural exists but it was not my intent to provide it."

LOL, there is? Are they falsifiable tests and observations for this evidence?

You didn't answer the question.

 

[camanintx]

"And in fact the question why is there something rather than nothing then becomes sort of trite because nothing is unstable. It will always produce something. The more interesting or surprising question might be why is there nothing. But of course if we ask that question, well, we wouldn't be here if that was true."

I think the last sentence is the key to understanding why the universe is necessary and therefore not contingent.

 

[camanintx]

That is the one thing the universe CANNOT do. It can't be necessary.

If the universe didn't exist, you wouldn't be here to ask what created it, would you?

I made no composition claims so no composition fallacy exists in my claims.

So what is your argument for a cause universe?

Natural infinites are not possible.

Nor are the required by a necessary universe.

There are mountains of evidence the supernatural exists but it was not my intent to provide it.

No, there are mountains of claims that the supernatural exists but none of them are backed by evidence.

My intent was to show the universe began to exist and CANNOT have a natural cause (at least that can be shown to be valid currently).

That's starting to sound like a "God of the gaps" argument.