Which existed first "something" or "nothing"?

[gnostic]

I notice in the Hebrew Scriptures at Isaiah 40:22 it says who spreads the heavens......and stretches them.....

Any thoughts about Isaiah 44:24 and Job 9:8 and Zechariah 12:1 A ?

This is just more mental contortions, trying to twist scriptures and modern science as if they are saying the same things.

This is why I am disgusted by creationists and superstitious believers, because of the level dishonesty required to twist anything written out of context.

The heavens that ALL scriptures or religious literature describe relating to the sun, moon and stars, are simply what they could see without the telescope, meaning the SKY.

The SKY as in the day sky and night sky, which would also include the clouds, rains, hails, snow, etc.

The original context of all the verses in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures that referred to the heavens, is the sky that people can see with the naked eye (meaning without telescopes or other devices). And the sky is what they can see from horizon to horizon.

All references to heaven and the celestial bodies (stars, sun and moon) have nothing to do with the galaxies or the universe or outer space or deep space, because they have no understanding of these largely modern concepts.

This "stretching" of heaven simply mean the sky, from horizon to horizon, and nothing beyond what they can see. The stretching of sky is not even original concept of the bible. The writers of biblical books were no better at learning the truth about real astronomy than any other people from other contemporary civilisations.

The Egyptians wrote in the Pyramid Text (late 3rd millennium BCE) and the Coffin Texts (1st half of 2nd millennium BCE) and the Book of the Dead (2nd half of 2nd millennium BCE), describe the "heavens" as the "expanse" or the "firmament", just as the Genesis describe the sky-heaven, on the 2nd day, as the expanse or firmament.

Firmament is how the ancient people view the heavens or sky, as like a dome. Everything that they could possibly see (stars, sun, moon, meteors, comets, clouds, rain, hails, snow, and even birds), are all contained in this dome-shape sky.

The "stretching" just simply mean what an observer on the ground can see is limited to the horizons. They are not talking about stars or the galaxies in deep space, which they cannot see, let alone the universe.

Imagine you are in the middle of the sea, and all you can in your horizons (360 degrees) are just water, with no lands in sight. It is exactly the same thing, with the ancient people when they look into the sky.

The dishonesty of religious people, especially creationists, is that they are trying to distort what the bible is actually saying, so they can push modern science, into barely coherent verses.

These scatter verses (from Isaiah, Job and Zechariah) that you have cited in that reply, barely contained anything "scientific". Each of those verses are open to interpretations, and you are readily to distort and twist the meaning of them.

Let's look at the first one, Isaiah 44:24:

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
who formed you in the womb:
I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who by myself spread out the earth;

In red, all I see "stretched out the heavens" to mean just the sky, and not the entire universe, because the next line clearly also state the earth being "spread out" too.

Now unless you think the Earth itself can be stretched out like the universe, then it would be safe to assume that the "heavens" that the verse referred to is just the sky.

I think I am pretty spot-on with my interpretations of Isaiah's verse that the verse is not talking about the universe.

 

[gnostic]

Except where "cosmos" means something else.

You mean something like this?

 

[Etritonakin]

or none of them unless the ONE who created/evolved them communicates and informs us which one.
Topic open for Theists and Atheists alike.

Regards

There was never nothing -as "ever" requires something -"nothing" existed before something -therefore nothing never existed. Nothing isn't a thing -so it cannot exist -hence..... NO THING

It can only exist as a concept which cannot be true.

 

[Willamena]

Something and nothing come into existence at the same time.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Something and nothing come into existence at the same time.

Where can we find this reality represented by the concept of 'nothing'...and how do we prove it is nothing? ...

 

[Willamena]

Where can we find this reality represented by the concept of 'nothing'...and how do we prove it is nothing? ...

Firstly, it's as impossible to prove that something is something as to prove that it is nothing.

And secondly, we find it here and now, in negation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Firstly, it's as impossible to prove that something is something as to prove that it is nothing.

And secondly, we find it here and now, in negation.

No one disagrees that the sum total of energy and mass in the universe exists as something....science can prove it...but science can not prove nothing has ever existed..

So what energy and mass that exists in the here and now that has ever been made to become nothing by negation?

 

[Willamena]

No one disagrees that the sum total of energy and mass in the universe exists as something....science can prove it...

Well, I do... {raises hand} I disagree. That isn't what "something" means to me. I'm an idealist, not a materialist. Ideas are something.

...but science can not prove nothing has ever existed. So what energy and mass that exists in the here and now that has ever been made to become nothing by negation?

No energy or mass. Just you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No one disagrees that the sum total of energy and mass in the universe exists as something....science can prove it

"Science" can do no such thing, nor can scientists. And in modern physics, it isn't remotely clear what "energy and mass" means: particle physics exists because the equivalence Einstein gave us between mass and energy forces the high energy oscillations we find in quantum mechanics to yield energy and mass out of nothing.

...but science can not prove nothing has ever existed..

To the extent that science can "prove" anything about energy and mass, "it" can certainly prove the above (it can't, of course, because proof is for mathematics).

So what energy and mass that exists in the here and now that has ever been made to become nothing by negation?

"The quantum treatment of electromagnetic radiation has similarities with the harmonic oscillator problem. In the study of photons, creation operators “create” photons and annihilation operators “annihilate” photons. As discussed below, creation operators “create” one quantum of energy in the harmonic oscillator and annihilation operators “annihilate” one quantum of energy."
(Source)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, I do... {raises hand} I disagree. That isn't what "something" means to me. I'm an idealist, not a materialist. Ideas are something.

No energy or mass. Just you.

Of course ideas are something...I never said they weren't.....so where is your proof that you can make an idea become nonexistent?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

"Science" can do no such thing, nor can scientists. And in modern physics, it isn't remotely clear what "energy and mass" means: particle physics exists because the equivalence Einstein gave us between mass and energy forces the high energy oscillations we find in quantum mechanics to yield energy and mass out of nothing.

To the extent that science can "prove" anything about energy and mass, "it" can certainly prove the above (it can't, of course, because proof is for mathematics).

"The quantum treatment of electromagnetic radiation has similarities with the harmonic oscillator problem. In the study of photons, creation operators “create” photons and annihilation operators “annihilate” photons. As discussed below, creation operators “create” one quantum of energy in the harmonic oscillator and annihilation operators “annihilate” one quantum of energy."
(Source)

I have no idea what you are talking about? Reread my post....if do you not agree that universal energy and mass can be considered something....then that implies you consider it nothing...which is absurd...even for you...

Mathematical proof is merely conceptualization....concepts are not real (except as concepts)... until science can apply the theory and create nothing from something...there is no proof and my statement stands as factual...

So nothing has changed...you start with a quantum of energy and end with a quantum of energy...no nothing has been created...you should know better...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

if do you not agree that universal energy and mass can be considered something....then that implies you consider it nothing

That's correct, as this "universal energy and mass" is foreign to physics and essentially meaningless (as well as confuted by basically all observations since at least the beginning of the 20th century). I'm not even sure what you intend by "universal" here, let alone how you would make it fit with physical theories.

Mathematical proof is merely conceptualization....concepts are not real (except as concepts)... until science can apply the theory and create nothing from something...there is no proof and my statement stands as factual...

The sciences don't "prove", because proof is a matter of logical necessity and any statements concerned with what exists, is real, etc., depend upon assumptions.

So nothing has changed...you start with a quantum of energy and end with a quantum of energy

Except you don't. It doesn't work like this. The creation or annihilation of a quantum of energy doesn't necessarily result in the creation or annihilation of any corresponding quantum of energy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That's correct, as this "universal energy and mass" is foreign to physics and essentially meaningless (as well as confuted by basically all observations since at least the beginning of the 20th century). I'm not even sure what you intend by "universal" here, let alone how you would make it fit with physical theories.


The sciences don't "prove", because proof is a matter of logical necessity and any statements concerned with what exists, is real, etc., depend upon assumptions.


Except you don't. It doesn't work like this. The creation or annihilation of a quantum of energy doesn't necessarily result in the creation or annihilation of any corresponding quantum of energy.

Now you are being silly....we are talking about about this energy and mass of the universe...the stuff we, the earth, stars, etc...are made of. And you are saying it is all nothing.....yes?

Ok fine....I will settle for practical evidence of creating nothing from energy or matter...where is the evidence?

Don't be foolish.....is there any mass being removed from the universe permanently?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Now you are being silly....we are talking about about this energy and mass of the universe...the stuff we, the earth, stars, etc...are made of.

I am talking about what physics says everything consists of. You are asserting something about some imagined "universal energy and mass", whatever that means. You do not deal with the physics that brought into being the notions of mass and energy as these physical theories exist today. If you did, you would be far less concerned with the conservation of energy and mass (which are obviously and clearly violated in theory and empirically) and more concerned with the conservation of information.
And you are saying it is all nothing.....yes?

Ok fine....I will settle for practical evidence of creating nothing from energy or matter...where is the evidence?

It's called particle physics (although you could get the same from quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, or quantum field theory in general). Every experiment performed in high energy particle physics, particle accelerators, scattering devices, and all the basic and complex instruments used to investigate particle physics or relativistic quantum mechanics attest to the appearance and annihilation of both energy and matter. Particles appear from nowhere all the time and disappear rapidly. Same with energy. Spend some time with Feynman diagrams, annihilation and creation operators, and quantum field theory more generally.

Don't be foolish.....is there any mass being removed from the universe permanently?

Obviously yes, and clearly yes according to every physical theory currently held to be true. After all, regardless of whether inflationary theories are true (or the various multiverse theories/cosmology) as apposed to the more bare-bones big bang theory, fluctuations in the quantum vacuum and similar high energy oscillations necessarily result in the appearance of BOTH mass and energy ex nihilo, whilst the appearance of the universe necessitates the emergence of the entirety of mass and energy from a state of affairs in which neither existed.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am talking about what physics says everything consists of. You are asserting something about some imagined "universal energy and mass", whatever that means. You do not deal with the physics that brought into being the notions of mass and energy as these physical theories exist today. If you did, you would be far less concerned with the conservation of energy and mass (which are obviously and clearly violated in theory and empirically) and more concerned with the conservation of information.
And you are saying it is all nothing.....yes?


It's called particle physics (although you could get the same from quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, or quantum field theory in general). Every experiment performed in high energy particle physics, particle accelerators, scattering devices, and all the basic and complex instruments used to investigate particle physics or relativistic quantum mechanics attest to the appearance and annihilation of both energy and matter. Particles appear from nowhere all the time and disappear rapidly. Same with energy. Spend some time with Feynman diagrams, annihilation and creation operators, and quantum field theory more generally.


Obviously yes, and clearly yes according to every physical theory currently held to be true. After all, regardless of whether inflationary theories are true (or the various multiverse theories/cosmology) as apposed to the more bare-bones big bang theory, fluctuations in the quantum vacuum and similar high energy oscillations necessarily result in the appearance of BOTH mass and energy ex nihilo, whilst the appearance of the universe necessitates the emergence of the entirety of mass and energy from a state of affairs in which neither existed.

Hmmm....stop being a time waster pretending you do not understand what is being explained to you....why do you maintain the energy and mass that constitutes the universe does not exist?

Nonsense....the sum total of mass and energy of the universe remains the same wrt the particle physics of CERN LHC...

I am not talking about theoretical reality....but actual reality....science can not create mass and energy from nothing....nor create nothing from mass and energy... get over it..

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Hmmm....stop being a time waster pretending you do not understand what is being explained to you

I'm not pretending any such thing. I believe you have next to no understanding of modern physics, you are completely incapable of demonstrating anything about mass or energy in terms of modern physics, and you are utterly reliant on popular notions stolen from popular sources for your little attempt at asserting what concepts from physics are. You can't explain what you are fundamentally ignorant of (i.e., physics). You are neither a physicist nor a scientist nor familiar with the relevant literature here nor are you even capable of reading the relevant literature.

....why do you maintain the energy and mass that constitutes the universe does not exist?

There is no such mass and energy, as anybody who is at all familiar with quantum field theory, particle physics, QED, QCD, etc., would be well aware of. We describe the universe in terms of (among other things) mass and energy, but modern physics requires that we allow both mass and energy to be destroyed and created constantly.

Nonsense....the sum total of mass and energy of the universe remains the same wrt the particle physics of CERN LHC...

There is no "sum total" that has constantly remained the same, as such a theory would contradict BOTH the big bang theory AND inflationary cosmologies (and modern physics). You apparently don't understand how conservation laws behave in modern physics, so let me explain: what is conserved in modern physics is conserved by choice. To the extent that either mass or energy are conserved (and neither are) in modern physics, it is via choice, because we are free to choose whatever we wish when it comes to symmetry and conservation, yet particular choices are regarded and found to be more fruitful. Your classical, outdated little "universal" mass and energy are so lost in the dust that both have been replaced by the conservation of information. THAT, not your precious little attempt to cling to your misconceptions of modern physics in terms of the century old notion of mass and energy, is what matters. Get with the program.

I am not talking about theoretical reality....but actual reality

You aren't talking about any reality. You've misrepresented physics you lack the education, knowledge, and general background to begin to understand and have used your misconceptions to assert that physicists have somehow claimed things which your limited knowledge of both physics and the sciences more generally can handle. You haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not pretending any such thing. I believe you have next to no understanding of modern physics, you are completely incapable of demonstrating anything about mass or energy in terms of modern physics, and you are utterly reliant on popular notions stolen from popular sources for your little attempt at asserting what concepts from physics are. You can't explain what you are fundamentally ignorant of (i.e., physics). You are neither a physicist nor a scientist nor familiar with the relevant literature here nor are you even capable of reading the relevant literature.

There is no such mass and energy, as anybody who is at all familiar with quantum field theory, particle physics, QED, QCD, etc., would be well aware of. We describe the universe in terms of (among other things) mass and energy, but modern physics requires that we allow both mass and energy to be destroyed and created constantly.


There is no "sum total" that has constantly remained the same, as such a theory would contradict BOTH the big bang theory AND inflationary cosmologies (and modern physics). You apparently don't understand how conservation laws behave in modern physics, so let me explain: what is conserved in modern physics is conserved by choice. To the extent that either mass or energy are conserved (and neither are) in modern physics, it is via choice, because we are free to choose whatever we wish when it comes to symmetry and conservation, yet particular choices are regarded and found to be more fruitful. Your classical, outdated little "universal" mass and energy are so lost in the dust that both have been replaced by the conservation of information. THAT, not your precious little attempt to cling to your misconceptions of modern physics in terms of the century old notion of mass and energy, is what matters. Get with the program.


You aren't talking about any reality. You've misrepresented physics you lack the education, knowledge, and general background to begin to understand and have used your misconceptions to assert that physicists have somehow claimed things which your limited knowledge of both physics and the sciences more generally can handle. You haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about.

The sum total of mass and energy does not change because the mass and energy is being destroyed and created constantly.... Are you still claiming the sum total of the energy and mass of the universe is nothing...or are you prepared to admit you were wrong?

The sum total of the mass and energy of the universe is not nothing as you claim...despite quantum theory....

Haha.....your ad hom misrepresentation is a attempt to misdirect and obscure the clear fact that you were rattled and made absurd claims that scientific acknowledged reality is in fact nothing...

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The sum total of mass and energy does not change because the mass and energy is being destroyed and created constantly.

I'm sorry, which theory of modern physics are you relying on to understand the creation and annihilation of particles and energy? Don't bother trying to explain, just provide the unique equations that apparently only you are privy to (don't worry about their complexity, as I'm well acquainted with integration over Hilbert spaces and other abstract spaces using, obviously, measure-theoretic integration and am perfectly content with whatever you wish to state using tensor analysis, group symmetries, and other foundations of modern physics).

... Are you still claiming the sum total of the energy and mass of the universe is nothing

Are you still claiming you have the faintest idea of what this would ("does") mean and that you can support your pathetic little "universal" mass and energy by reference to actual physics? Can you actually provide any justifications for your pathetic little nonsense that accords with actual physical theory or that actually involves physics? For example, can you make your little "universal" conservation law consistent with quantum field theory (generally, which means consistent with QED, QCD, particle physics, the standard model, etc.)? If so, please feel free to stop pretending to have a clue and present the mathematical formalism that all of us use when we actually demonstrate what happens in physical theories and in actual science (as opposed to your attempts).

..or are you prepared to admit you were wrong?

I rely on such results for a living. You rely on them without understanding for effect and to convince yourself of your beliefs despite your inability to understand the theories or concepts you refer to.

The sum total of the mass and energy of the universe is not nothing as you claim...despite quantum theory....

Then by all means demonstrate how mass and energy is treated in modern physics and why this shows that both exist as you claim. Or admit you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm sorry, which theory of modern physics are you relying to understand the creation and annihilation of particles and energy? Don't bother trying to explain, just provide the unique equations that apparently only you are privy to (don't worry about their complexity, as I'm well acquainted with integration over Hilbert spaces and other abstract spaces using, obviously, measure-theoretic integration and am perfectly content with whatever you wish to state using tensor analysis, group symmetries, and other foundations of modern physics).


Are you still claiming you have the faintest idea of what this would ("does") mean and can support your pathetic little "universal" mass and energy by reference to actual physics? Can you actually provide any justifications for your pathetic little nonsense that accords with actual physical theory or that actually involves physics? For example, can you make your little "universal" conservation law consistent with quantum field theory (generally, which means consistent with QED, QCD, particle physics, the standard model, etc.)? If so, please feel free to stop pretending to have a clue and present the mathematical formalism that all of us use when we actually demonstrate what happens in physical theories and in actual science (as opposed to your attempts).

I rely on such results for a living. You rely on them without understanding for effect and to convince yourself of your beliefs despite your inability to understand the theories or concepts you refer to.


Then by all means demonstrate how mass and energy is treated in modern physics and why this shows that both exist as you claim. Or admit you haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.

Look...you claimed the sum total of the mass and energy of the universe is nothing.....from the get go....Now you are all hand waving and going on about Hilbert spaces, etc., as though that makes your case credible.....

Ok...so what is it in the way you earn your living that can show us practically why the sum total of mass and energy in the universe is nothing? Please provide citation to the relevant papers that shows that everything in existence is in fact nothing? What is your specialized field again and your published papers?

I have never met another human being in my life until now who thinks science has evidence that the sum total of all this is in fact nothing....

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Look...you claimed the sum total of the mass and energy of the universe is nothing

I did no such thing. I challenged your ignorant, erroneous conceptions about your fictitious "universal" mass and energy that you have once again failed to substantiate with any actual physical theories. I explained to you how BOTH energy and mass are constantly created and destroyed. You failed, repeatedly, to show that you have the faintest clue as to what this means or as to how either matter or energy are treated in physics. Now, you attempt to make up for your obvious failures to deal with actual physics with a google-mined image.

Ok...so what is it in the way you earn your living that can show us practically why the sum total of mass and energy in the universe is nothing?

You don't get it, do you? I haven't ever said this, as this claim is your utter failure to understand the creation and annihilation of matter and energy. I already provided a source, you already ignored/misunderstood it, and already demonstrated an utter inability to understand basic physics, let alone the dynamics of mass and energy consistent with modern physics.

Please provide citation to the relevant papers that shows that everything in existence is in fact nothing? What is your specialized field again and your published papers?

I've published papers in everything from the dynamics of molecular interactions in neuroscience to the historical Jesus. My graduate research was on the relevance of quantum theory to neurodynamics. But you don't need citations of any actual papers, textbooks, monographs, etc. You require a fundamentally, basic, understanding of modern physics that you obviously lack. I can't cite papers in physics literature which are intended for specialists for those fundamentally ignorant of modern physics. If you want me to cite "how to", "teach yourself", or other elementary texts for you I would be more than happy to recommend a few books so that you can stop peddling nonsense.