3 ms·

What we do know is that the universe didn’t begin from nothing. It’s impossible for something to arise out of nothing, so there has always been something. Noth

What we do know is that the universe didn’t begin from nothing. It’s impossible for something to arise out of nothing, so there has always been something. Nothingness is the space that holds everything. From there it can be argued that the universe began with the adjacent possible of nothing.

speedbird 4y ago
Do we? Please enlighten …
- dijerido 4y ago
  This argument goes back to Parmenides.
- Amezarak 4y ago
  I think most statements like this have an underlying conceptual problem in that they assume the existence of causality. Since the Big Bang is the beginning of space and time, it doesn’t make sense to say it “came from” anything - not nothing, anything. Nothing could have “caused” it because causality depends on there being a before in which the cause could take place. Causality breaks down with the beginning of time and that causes us a lot of conceptual confusion.
philipov 4y ago
It's not impossible for something to arise out of nothing. Well, what I really should say is, it's not impossible for two somethings to arise out of nothing, as long as they have opposite charge and annihilate when they come into contact. I like to imagine there's an anti-universe moving backwards in time from the start of the universe, and that's where all the unexplained missing baryonic antimatter ended up.
- tadfisher 4y ago
  So the universe is a crazy huge Feynman diagram that got split at the edge of a black hole? Cool.
- smolder 4y ago
  Put in other words, something is a subset of nothing! This idea fits in well with the unprovable MWI as well. If every possibile configuration of spacetime exists, and in a symmetry where everything has an opposite, doesn't it all kind of "add up" to 0? This idea has been in my head since high school physics many years ago.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  If one redefined nothing as something, then the universe can arise.
  - jgrowl 4y ago
    I think this comment is actually very insightful. If you assume that 'nothing' is what cannot exist, then everything becomes a matter of scale and instrument sensitivity
InCityDreams 4y ago
>What we do know is that the universe didn’t begin from nothing. It’s impossible for something to arise out of nothing, so there has always been something. Got proof? ...and isn't that the whole point of the discussion?
mannykannot 4y ago
It is not obvious to me whether one could determine if the phrase "the adjacent possible of nothing" refers to something, as opposed to merely resembling phrases that do. Regardless, there is an evocative ring to it.
danwee 4y ago
Please, how can any human being be so absolute about anything? Modern humans emerged ~300K years ago (or at least that's what we know so far), so how on earth can we be sure about anything? Our science is nice and all, and can help us built amazing devices that save lives and allow us to explore... but all we have are models. Theories. Zero certainty. If anything, science is all about: "I have no idea what this is, but I have a model that seems to explain certain scenarios. Let's stick with it until someone more intelligent than us provides a better model". We may be "sure" about certain "laws" (e.g,, thermodynamics, speed of light, etc.)... but I think it's a mistake to be so absolute about them.

speedbird 4y ago

Do we? Please enlighten …

dijerido 4y ago
This argument goes back to Parmenides.
Amezarak 4y ago
I think most statements like this have an underlying conceptual problem in that they assume the existence of causality. Since the Big Bang is the beginning of space and time, it doesn’t make sense to say it “came from” anything - not nothing, anything. Nothing could have “caused” it because causality depends on there being a before in which the cause could take place. Causality breaks down with the beginning of time and that causes us a lot of conceptual confusion.

philipov 4y ago

It's not impossible for something to arise out of nothing. Well, what I really should say is, it's not impossible for two somethings to arise out of nothing, as long as they have opposite charge and annihilate when they come into contact. I like to imagine there's an anti-universe moving backwards in time from the start of the universe, and that's where all the unexplained missing baryonic antimatter ended up.

tadfisher 4y ago
So the universe is a crazy huge Feynman diagram that got split at the edge of a black hole? Cool.
smolder 4y ago
Put in other words, something is a subset of nothing! This idea fits in well with the unprovable MWI as well. If every possibile configuration of spacetime exists, and in a symmetry where everything has an opposite, doesn't it all kind of "add up" to 0? This idea has been in my head since high school physics many years ago.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
If one redefined nothing as something, then the universe can arise.
- jgrowl 4y ago
  I think this comment is actually very insightful. If you assume that 'nothing' is what cannot exist, then everything becomes a matter of scale and instrument sensitivity

InCityDreams 4y ago

>What we do know is that the universe didn’t begin from nothing. It’s impossible for something to arise out of nothing, so there has always been something. Got proof? ...and isn't that the whole point of the discussion?

mannykannot 4y ago

It is not obvious to me whether one could determine if the phrase "the adjacent possible of nothing" refers to something, as opposed to merely resembling phrases that do. Regardless, there is an evocative ring to it.

danwee 4y ago

Please, how can any human being be so absolute about anything? Modern humans emerged ~300K years ago (or at least that's what we know so far), so how on earth can we be sure about anything? Our science is nice and all, and can help us built amazing devices that save lives and allow us to explore... but all we have are models. Theories. Zero certainty. If anything, science is all about: "I have no idea what this is, but I have a model that seems to explain certain scenarios. Let's stick with it until someone more intelligent than us provides a better model". We may be "sure" about certain "laws" (e.g,, thermodynamics, speed of light, etc.)... but I think it's a mistake to be so absolute about them.