Why is there something rather than nothing?

[sealchan]

Why would you think intuition is going to do us any good when it comes to the universe? Our intuition has evolved to cope with life on the surface of our planet, with moderate gravity and 'slow' (much less than light) speeds.

Relativity and (even more so) quantum mechanics are highly counter-intuitive yet both have been tested to astonishing levels of accuracy. Most modern technology relies on QM and the GPS relies on relativity. There is no "leap of faith" in mathematics, the confirmation of it is that it works.

It is general relativity that tells us that space can curve and expand and there is no need for anything for it to expand into and no need for a higher dimensional space for it to curve in (it's just a change in the geometry of space-time).

it is the specialist who understands how to reach out beyond what one can intuit to understand that truth is still there.

It is the myth maker that helps us to understand without the specialists knowledge.

In a world where more and more we need our science to help us to understand what is happening to our world, we have to be able to communicate the truths of science to those whose faith in it is less than the sacrifices and changes they might be asked to make by those in the knowledge and authority to know.

I just read a book about Pauli (and Jung) how modern physics struggled at points where intuitions failed to yield the results that they had (as with Einstein) until experimental data was focused. But still physicists strived to create a sense of intuitive closure to those results. It's just human nature to listen to our intuition as it as often leads us to discovery and problem detection as it might lead us down a dead end.

 

[David T]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

Invalid question due to lack of self awareness.

 

[gnostic]

That's weird. Why would he or she call it ignorance? Anything can be anthropomorphised for the benefit of self and others.

In the last 20 years or so, I have equated religious beliefs with superstitions, both of past and present religions.

And the source or product of any superstition come from ignorance...or fear...or both of them.

Because of the fear of unknown, ignorant people tends to make up “god” or”spirit” and associating these “beings” to things or events they don’t understand, often using anthropomorphism.

That’s why faith-based belief is nothing more than superstition.

Don’t you find it strange that Abrahamic religions that if their god as powerful and all-knowing as they claimed, can be confined to their respective scriptures?

Certain Christians and Muslims actually believed that EVERYTHING that they can know about their God, can be found in their the Bible and the Qur’an...scriptures that are filled with unrealistic myths, fables and fairytale.

 

[Segev Moran]

So, why is there something rather than nothing? "God" is of course not an answer to the question, since asserting the existence of God only raises the same question (where did God come from?). As it turns out, the question produces a paradox, since any attempted explanation produces the same problem. As for me, I am content to say that there does not have to be a reason anything exists. I would assert that the universe exists, and that's all we can know. Any attempted explanation only raises the same questions again.

No one really knows the answer. Anyone who tries to answer it, will probably be doing a guess work.
We do however know, as you stated, that there is a universe.
Something exists.
The question goes much deeper, as we can't really define or agree what something is. So for the sake of the discussion, let's assume when we say something, we mean the physical existence.
By physical, i mean anything that is measurable including forces and energies.

The theory goes that our universe shouldn't have really exist. as there are matter and anti matter, the assumption is that they cancel each other, as the amount of the matter and antimatter is the same (based on the recent experiments we have done), we observe that there is nothing left. the amount is the same causing nothing to remain. yet the question still remains, what happened? how come there is a matter that managed to "escape" and survive?

is the process of creation was deliberate or not is not really relevant for this question unless you ask ask "why" in the aspect of purpose (which i assume you don't).

But the fact yet remains that some deviation caused some matter to survive. random or not, chance or not, the fact is it happened. so without a doubt something caused Something to remain and exist.

As you said, this question can be recursive, so lets leave it at what cause our known, observable universe to exist.

The first "pieces" of matter are assumed to have been created fractions of time after the big bang.
But something was there before. we describe it as a sort of Plasma state where light was trapped inside a very dense and hot state the it couldn't escape. it is nice to find a correlation to the description of light eruption described in Genesis to the scientific theory describing an instant when light was "released" from this Plasma state and suddenly the universe became visible.

But this raises several questions...

Was the universe real if there was nothing to observe it? as the answer might seem very clear, recent studies suggest that reality is nothing more than our perception of things. so maybe the universe exist because we exist?

But lets assume it is not so, and reality exists regardless of a receptive minds.

So we had a state of no matter, and than a state of matter... Something triggered this change.

going back to the question, what caused the energy that caused matter.

Which raises the question of what cause the energy that caused matter.

So the question remains open, but something without a doubt caused Something to happen.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In the last 20 years or so, I have equated religious beliefs with superstitions, both of past and present religions.

And the source or product of any superstition come from ignorance...or fear...or both of them.

Because of the fear of unknown, ignorant people tends to make up “god” or”spirit” and associating these “beings” to things or events they don’t understand, often using anthropomorphism.

That’s why faith-based belief is nothing more than superstition.

Don’t you find it strange that Abrahamic religions that if their god as powerful and all-knowing as they claimed, can be confined to their respective scriptures?

Certain Christians and Muslims actually believed that EVERYTHING that they can know about their God, can be found in their the Bible and the Qur’an...scriptures that are filled with unrealistic myths, fables and fairytale.

I used to be interested in the academics and philosophic opinions of religion. People are ignorant just as we are today. Probably ignorant compared to people years from now looking back. It's not an issue with me unless like in christianity and muslim they cause hurt and death to others. Some using their beliefs as a weapon of salvation. One RFnian here said since she saw people going to hell, why Not tell them about the good news.

My problem is the selfishness in that statement. Why woule you save someone who says they arent drowning. One sided. Has been like that for years.

Whether one amthromopized god is interesting for convo. They way both of your and the other comments read, it sound negative. If no one is harmed, what is wrong with beliefs based on ignorance?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

No one really knows the answer. Anyone who tries to answer it, will probably be doing a guess work.
We do however know, as you stated, that there is a universe.
Something exists.
The question goes much deeper, as we can't really define or agree what something is. So for the sake of the discussion, let's assume when we say something, we mean the physical existence.
By physical, i mean anything that is measurable including forces and energies.

The theory goes that our universe shouldn't have really exist. as there are matter and anti matter, the assumption is that they cancel each other, as the amount of the matter and antimatter is the same (based on the recent experiments we have done), we observe that there is nothing left. the amount is the same causing nothing to remain. yet the question still remains, what happened? how come there is a matter that managed to "escape" and survive?

is the process of creation was deliberate or not is not really relevant for this question unless you ask ask "why" in the aspect of purpose (which i assume you don't).

But the fact yet remains that some deviation caused some matter to survive. random or not, chance or not, the fact is it happened. so without a doubt something caused Something to remain and exist.

As you said, this question can be recursive, so lets leave it at what cause our known, observable universe to exist.

The first "pieces" of matter are assumed to have been created fractions of time after the big bang.
But something was there before. we describe it as a sort of Plasma state where light was trapped inside a very dense and hot state the it couldn't escape. it is nice to find a correlation to the description of light eruption described in Genesis to the scientific theory describing an instant when light was "released" from this Plasma state and suddenly the universe became visible.

But this raises several questions...

Was the universe real if there was nothing to observe it? as the answer might seem very clear, recent studies suggest that reality is nothing more than our perception of things. so maybe the universe exist because we exist?

But lets assume it is not so, and reality exists regardless of a receptive minds.

So we had a state of no matter, and than a state of matter... Something triggered this change.

going back to the question, what caused the energy that caused matter.

Which raises the question of what cause the energy that caused matter.

So the question remains open, but something without a doubt caused Something to happen.

Why do you assume that a state of "no matter" ever occurred?

 

[ratiocinator]

The theory goes that our universe shouldn't have really exist. as there are matter and anti matter, the assumption is that they cancel each other, as the amount of the matter and antimatter is the same (based on the recent experiments we have done), we observe that there is nothing left. the amount is the same causing nothing to remain.

For information: matter and antimatter don't cancel to nothing. Both have positive mass (hence positive energy). A matter-antimatter annihilation produces other stuff (typically photons at low energies).

There is a problem in that it is unclear why there was slightly more matter than antimatter produced in the hadron epoch (from about 10^-6 to 1s after the big bang) but is has nothing to do with why there is something rather than nothing.

What might be more relevant is that the universe may actually have total energy of zero. This is because gravitational energy is negative.

But something was there before. we describe it as a sort of Plasma state where light was trapped inside a very dense and hot state the it couldn't escape. it is nice to find a correlation to the description of light eruption described in Genesis to the scientific theory describing an instant when light was "released" from this Plasma state and suddenly the universe became visible.

Not sure what you mean by this. Light didn't really exist in the very earliest times after the big bang - you have to wait for electroweak symmetry breaking (about 10^-12s after BB) to get distinct photons. Light doesn't get to travel very far until the universe becomes transparent (about 370,000 years after BB); the origin of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

See: Chronology of the universe

 

[Glaurung]

Yes: you're arguing for your concept of God, and I would bet good money that there's more to your concept of God than just "uncaused cause."

Just because I am Catholic does not mean that every argument I make is specifically related to that Catholicism. Even if Catholicism were completely false, that in itself would have no bearing on this particular conversation. I could reject Catholicism and still believe in a transcendent creator.

"Without evidence?" I assumed that you would be familiar with the Nicene Creed. If you aren't, maybe you should check it out.

I am not arguing for Christianity. The existence of God and the validity of Christianity are different topics.

Trying to make this about my religious beliefs is a red herring. Worse still, insisting that Christianity may only be considered by how you would have it defined is a bogus way of trying to argue with me.

But if we are going to talk about Christianity specifically.

It describes how God the Son is a literal man with powers beyond that of a normal man, who now lives in Heaven. I think "cosmic superman" is a fair summary of this idea.

Your understanding of Christ is faulty. According to Nicene Christianity, Christ has always existed as the Second Person of the Trinity. The Second Person took on a human nature at a particular time in history, but that human nature is not His nature as God. As God, Christ is the preexisting Logos as revealed in John 1.

I think "cosmic superman" also works for God the Father, a being who the Creed tells us begot (not made, begot - the Creed is emphatic about this) a son and has a form that's physical enough to have a "right hand" and to reside in a specific place.

When Christians talk anthropomorphically of God, it is not to be taken literally. Specifically, to sit at someone's right hand is a metaphor for a place of honor. Christ, both being God and the redeemer of the world holds a unique position of honor. The term begot emphasizes Christ as having the same eternal nature as God the Father. It means that God the Son has always existed and is equal (consubstantial) with God the Father. It means that the Son isn't a creature.

OTOH, your god that's "timeless, transcendent and completely devoid of all parts and material components" doesn't fit anything described in the Creed, which says that even the Holy Spirit talks to people occasionally.

The problem is your understanding of the creed. Your failure to understand metaphorical anthropomorphism. (A common device throughout the Bible). And the history and theology behind the creed. As much as you may want to claim it, Christianity does not actually assert that God is a old man in the sky. That is just an artistic device.

In brief, telling me what you claim I believe isn't going to make me reconsider anything.

 

[syo]

So, why is there something rather than nothing?

Gods' gift to us. Life is their gift to us.

 

[Segev Moran]

Why do you assume that a state of "no matter" ever occurred?

This is the accepted scientific theory today.
When saying a state of no matter means that there was a stage in our universe that everything was so hot, matter simply couldn't form. Atoms were not able to form do the chaotic state.

 

[viole]

This is the accepted scientific theory today.
When saying a state of no matter means that there was a stage in our universe that everything was so hot, matter simply couldn't form. Atoms were not able to form do the chaotic state.

Hot means radiation. Radiation means energy. Energy means mass.

So, the question remains: what justifies belief of a moment in time without matter?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ratiocinator]

Hot means radiation. Radiation means energy. Energy means mass.

So, the question remains: what justifies belief of a moment in time without matter?

Actually matter is rather a vague term in physics.

Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.​

-- Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy​

In the very early universe, it becomes even more problematic since the Standard Model didn't apply before the various symmetry breaking events.

In everyday terms, as the universe cools, it becomes possible for the quantum fields that create the forces and particles around us, to settle at lower energy levels and with higher levels of stability. In doing so, they completely shift how they interact. Forces and interactions arise due to these fields, so the universe can behave very differently above and below a phase transition. For example, in a later epoch, a side effect of one phase transition is that suddenly, many particles that had no mass at all acquire a mass (they begin to interact differently with the Higgs field), and a single force begins to manifest as two separate forces.​

-- Very early universe​

 

[Segev Moran]

Hot means radiation. Radiation means energy. Energy means mass.

So, the question remains: what justifies belief of a moment in time without matter?

Ciao

- viole

There was a time when our entire universe was Plasma...
Plasma is considered matter.
BEFORE that, there was just energy... no matter yet.
What you claim above is based on the notion the energy is generated from matter.. which is true, yet the first satges of our universe were only energy.. not matter... hence...
? => Energy => Matter => Energy => Matter => Energy and so on.

 

[viole]

There was a time when our entire universe was Plasma...
Plasma is considered matter.
BEFORE that, there was just energy... no matter yet.
What you claim above is based on the notion the energy is generated from matter.. which is true, yet the first satges of our universe were only energy.. not matter... hence...
? => Energy => Matter => Energy => Matter => Energy and so on.

Well, like someone already correctly observed, we have to precisely define what matter is.

I make an example. Energy, no matter (pun intended) how pure and atom free, has gravitational effects. It has a weight.

Is that matter for you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[MonkeyFire]

No matter what no means no.

 

[Polymath257]

There was a time when our entire universe was Plasma...
Plasma is considered matter.
BEFORE that, there was just energy... no matter yet.
What you claim above is based on the notion the energy is generated from matter.. which is true, yet the first satges of our universe were only energy.. not matter... hence...
? => Energy => Matter => Energy => Matter => Energy and so on.

There was never *just* energy. All energy is an aspect of some type of matter: either fermionic or bosonic matter. For the very early universe, the energy was primarily in the curvature of space, but that corresponds to the energy of the gravitons.

 

[Segev Moran]

Well, like someone already correctly observed, we have to precisely define what matter is.

I make an example. Energy, no matter (pun intended) how pure and atom free, has gravitational effects. It has a weight.

Is that matter for you?

Ciao

- viole

light has gravitational effect, no mass, no weight.
is gravity matter in your opinion?
And if energy is matter in your POV, why is it called energy and not kinetic matter for example?

 

[viole]

light has gravitational effect, no mass, no weight.

E = mc^2.
Or, in units where c = 1:

E = m.

Energy is mass. They are the same thing. So, a photon (light) that has a certain frequency, it has a determined energy and therefore a determined mass.

So, your argument, if any, fails on account of something we have been knowing for more than 100 years now.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ratiocinator]

light has gravitational effect, no mass, no weight.
is gravity matter in your opinion?
And if energy is matter in your POV, why is it called energy and not kinetic matter for example?

Energy isn't matter and gravity certainly isn't matter. As I pointed out earlier, matter isn't a well defined term - it generally refers to some subset of particles but exactly which subset depends on the context. It's next to useless as a term when we are referring to the very early universe before symmetry breaking gave us the current set of particles (the standard model).

Once again, energy isn't stuff - it's a property of stuff.

E = mc^2.
Or, in units where c = 1:

E = m.

Energy is mass. They are the same thing. So, a photon (light) that has a certain frequency, it has a determined energy and therefore a determined mass.

So, your argument, if any, fails on account of something we have been knowing for more than 100 years now.

It depends whether you are referring to rest mass or relativistic mass. Light has energy and it has momentum but its rest mass is (probably) zero.

Here's a short summary: What is the mass of a photon?

 

[viole]

Energy isn't matter and gravity certainly isn't matter. As I pointed out earlier, matter isn't a well defined term - it generally refers to some subset of particles but exactly which subset depends on the context. It's next to useless as a term when we are referring to the very early universe before symmetry breaking gave us the current set of particles (the standard model).

Once again, energy isn't stuff - it's a property of stuff.



It depends whether you are referring to rest mass or relativistic mass. Light has energy and it has momentum but its rest mass is (probably) zero.

Here's a short summary: What is the mass of a photon?

Hej,

I mean relativistic mass. I cannot imagine anything with not zero rest mass traveling at the speed of light.

Ciao

- viole