5 ms·

Say we could break any physical rules of our current universe, is there a good theory that would explain how something might have been created out of nothing? i

by d0m 7y ago

Say we could break any physical rules of our current universe, is there a good theory that would explain how something might have been created out of nothing? i.e. imagine for a second that we're in a simulation and that the current laws of physic are just arbitrary created by a "host". This "host" could have very different physical laws. Could we think of any theory that would explain the creation of something out of nothing in this "host"? I'm very puzzled as to why the universe even exist.. wouldn't it have been much simpler not to have anything at all? I can only think of one answer: It couldn't have been otherwise. I.e. physically speaking, it had to happen. Maybe that's how we should approach the problem? Let's try to "create nothing"... maybe we'll realize that it's actually impossible to "have nothing" unless X happens, and maybe we'll figure out that X happening would explain how our universe was created? Or said in a different way, maybe the universe is actually "nothing", like it always was and will always be. But "nothing" may just be physically impossible so you need "positive" and "negative" things to cancel each other out so that the end result is "0". I'm not too sure where I'm going with this, but it reminds me of the quote "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." So, whatever the theories about big bang, multi-verse, universe expanding/collapsing indefinitely or even God-based theories, all of it comes back to "how did the first thing come out out of nowhere?" People talk about "Singularity", but this is just "kicking the can down the road". Still, by kicking the can I guess we keep learning new things, and maybe someday we will have the technology to answer these questions. Unfortunately, it seems like answering the next frontier seems to be an order of magnitude harder (time-wise and cost-wise) than answering the previous question.

radarsat1 7y ago
I don't know about why anything exists, but it stands to reason for me at least that if there is a non-zero net energy, without any boundary conditions, then it has to expand. That it expanded and cooled down into its current form is coincidental. Why there is non-zero energy in the first place is, I'll agree, odd. Your idea of it balancing out some negative energy elsewhere is interesting.. Maybe we're just the positive side of a temporary virtual particle in a higher universe-particle "foam" like the quantum foam.
SubiculumCode 7y ago
That is the most fundamental question. Why does anything exist at all? Conceptually, this question persist across all the big bangs, collapses, multi universes, or any other conception science has made informed conjectures about, doesn't require time, sequences, or cause and effect These are all processes suppose there is some underlying construct / process / force / structure. But nothing, not even the concept of nothing, not even ideas, maths, shadows on a cave wall. It is unknowable.
- Koshkin 7y ago
  Yet, for many specific values of $anything the answer is very much known.
dmbaggett 7y ago
You might be interested in Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark. He tries to argue that, fundamentally, the universe is "just math." In other words (glossing over enormous complexity here) if the basic axioms of math are true, the universe must exist. I have to admit I didn't fully buy the line of reasoning. But it's very interesting.
- AgentME 7y ago
  UD+ASSA (http://fennetic.net/irc/finney.org/~hal/udassa/ http://fennetic.net/irc/finney.org/~hal/udassa/) is an extension/refinement of the mathematical universe idea that I find very compelling. It explains why even though "everything mathematically describe-able is real", we personally see and anticipate that some things are more likely than other things, including why physics stays the same instead of spontaneously changing, etc. (One of the original authors of the idea thinks there's issues with it, but I think it's still a very useful idea: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zd2DrbHApWypJD2Rz/udt2-and-against-ud-assa https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zd2DrbHApWypJD2Rz/udt2-and-a...) Since considering it and the mathematical universe idea, the question of why anything exists at all no longer feels so mysterious. Even if there were somehow an objective universe with nothing in it, as long as the basic concepts of logic still held (which of course they do, they don't depend on the universe), then there would still be logical/mathematical structures that describe entities that see themselves as conscious.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  > if the basic axioms of math are true Isn't the problem that you can't prove axioms. We intuitively "know" them to be true but without proof.
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    You can't use deduction to prove them... but you use induction to show them to be statistically non-violated through experience so far.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  I haven't read it, but that certainly sounds a lot like saying that the map is, in fact, the territory.
jawns 7y ago
There's an interesting philosophical line of thought that distinguishes between things that are necessary and things that are contingent. A necessary thing must exist; it can't not exist. A contingent thing may exist, or it may not. In the classical definition of God, he has no beginning or end. He was not created by some other force. He exists necessarily. He just _is_. In fact, many theists describe God using terms such as "being itself" or "pure is-ness". Even the Hebrew name for God -- I AM -- makes references to this. And if God is necessary and uncreated, it gets around the question of, "Well, who created God?" But I've heard people point out that if you can say that God just is, without having been created, then why not say that the universe just is, without having been created? I think the answer to that question lies in this distinction between necessary and contingent things. Theists who have a classical conception of God would argue that God is necessary, but the universe is contingent. If you're interested in the philosophy behind this, here's an interesting resource: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
- galaxyLogic 7y ago
  Why is God a necessary thing?
  - lliamander 7y ago
    A valid question, and not one that in my opinion (even though I am a theist) that has an argument that is both clear and compelling (look up various Ontological arguments to see the gamut). I think it is enough to say the following things: 1. The universe clearly exists, but it is also clear that it doesn't have to exist (i.e. the universe is contingent) 2. Therefore, there must be some thing that exists, and exists of necessity, to explain the existence of the universe 3. The existence of necessary truths such as logic and mathematics are not sufficient to explain the existence of the universe, so therefore there must be something else, which could act as both the sufficient and necessary cause of the universe. We can call this thing God, but by that we don't commit ourselves to any particular religion. At most that gets us the God of deism.
    - 7y ago
bobthechef 7y ago
Btw, laws are not actually things. They're descriptions that are reified by some people. What you have are things in the universe that have natures that their natures lead to detectable patterns. A law of physics is just a shorthand way of saying "things of this kind behave in this way". It's very important to understand this instead of assuming the universe is some vacuous collection of natureless things that are governed from the outside by some "laws".

by d0m 7y ago

radarsat1 7y ago

I don't know about why anything exists, but it stands to reason for me at least that if there is a non-zero net energy, without any boundary conditions, then it has to expand. That it expanded and cooled down into its current form is coincidental. Why there is non-zero energy in the first place is, I'll agree, odd. Your idea of it balancing out some negative energy elsewhere is interesting.. Maybe we're just the positive side of a temporary virtual particle in a higher universe-particle "foam" like the quantum foam.

SubiculumCode 7y ago

That is the most fundamental question. Why does anything exist at all? Conceptually, this question persist across all the big bangs, collapses, multi universes, or any other conception science has made informed conjectures about, doesn't require time, sequences, or cause and effect These are all processes suppose there is some underlying construct / process / force / structure. But nothing, not even the concept of nothing, not even ideas, maths, shadows on a cave wall. It is unknowable.

Koshkin 7y ago
Yet, for many specific values of $anything the answer is very much known.

dmbaggett 7y ago

You might be interested in Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark. He tries to argue that, fundamentally, the universe is "just math." In other words (glossing over enormous complexity here) if the basic axioms of math are true, the universe must exist. I have to admit I didn't fully buy the line of reasoning. But it's very interesting.

AgentME 7y ago
UD+ASSA (http://fennetic.net/irc/finney.org/~hal/udassa/ http://fennetic.net/irc/finney.org/~hal/udassa/) is an extension/refinement of the mathematical universe idea that I find very compelling. It explains why even though "everything mathematically describe-able is real", we personally see and anticipate that some things are more likely than other things, including why physics stays the same instead of spontaneously changing, etc. (One of the original authors of the idea thinks there's issues with it, but I think it's still a very useful idea: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zd2DrbHApWypJD2Rz/udt2-and-against-ud-assa https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zd2DrbHApWypJD2Rz/udt2-and-a...) Since considering it and the mathematical universe idea, the question of why anything exists at all no longer feels so mysterious. Even if there were somehow an objective universe with nothing in it, as long as the basic concepts of logic still held (which of course they do, they don't depend on the universe), then there would still be logical/mathematical structures that describe entities that see themselves as conscious.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> if the basic axioms of math are true Isn't the problem that you can't prove axioms. We intuitively "know" them to be true but without proof.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  You can't use deduction to prove them... but you use induction to show them to be statistically non-violated through experience so far.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
I haven't read it, but that certainly sounds a lot like saying that the map is, in fact, the territory.

jawns 7y ago

There's an interesting philosophical line of thought that distinguishes between things that are necessary and things that are contingent. A necessary thing must exist; it can't not exist. A contingent thing may exist, or it may not. In the classical definition of God, he has no beginning or end. He was not created by some other force. He exists necessarily. He just _is_. In fact, many theists describe God using terms such as "being itself" or "pure is-ness". Even the Hebrew name for God -- I AM -- makes references to this. And if God is necessary and uncreated, it gets around the question of, "Well, who created God?" But I've heard people point out that if you can say that God just is, without having been created, then why not say that the universe just is, without having been created? I think the answer to that question lies in this distinction between necessary and contingent things. Theists who have a classical conception of God would argue that God is necessary, but the universe is contingent. If you're interested in the philosophy behind this, here's an interesting resource: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

galaxyLogic 7y ago
Why is God a necessary thing?
- lliamander 7y ago
  A valid question, and not one that in my opinion (even though I am a theist) that has an argument that is both clear and compelling (look up various Ontological arguments to see the gamut). I think it is enough to say the following things: 1. The universe clearly exists, but it is also clear that it doesn't have to exist (i.e. the universe is contingent) 2. Therefore, there must be some thing that exists, and exists of necessity, to explain the existence of the universe 3. The existence of necessary truths such as logic and mathematics are not sufficient to explain the existence of the universe, so therefore there must be something else, which could act as both the sufficient and necessary cause of the universe. We can call this thing God, but by that we don't commit ourselves to any particular religion. At most that gets us the God of deism.
  - 7y ago

bobthechef 7y ago

Btw, laws are not actually things. They're descriptions that are reified by some people. What you have are things in the universe that have natures that their natures lead to detectable patterns. A law of physics is just a shorthand way of saying "things of this kind behave in this way". It's very important to understand this instead of assuming the universe is some vacuous collection of natureless things that are governed from the outside by some "laws".