ex nihilo

[mandangalo18]

A creationist claimed to read in textbooks and science journals that nothing begat everything.
I challenged him to produce citations. He provided this http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ex-nihilo/ I know it's not a textbook or journal, but this quote is interesting.

"In 1973, I proposed that our Universe had been created spontaneously from nothing (ex nihilo), as a result of established principles of physics. This proposal variously struck people as preposterous, enchanting, or both." -Edward P. Tryon, 'What Made the World?" New Scientist, Vol. 101, Mar. 8, 1984, p. 14.

I can't get the article from the web, and I suspect it's a quote mine, but do you guys know anything about this? I'm arguing that "everything from nothing" is a straw man, and I could use a little help finding good citations showing that.

 

[Aught3]

Here's the only mention of Tryon that I found in New Scientist. It's from 1996 and not the article cited on the website you link to.

Here's Tryon's 1973 Nature paper where he proposes that the universe might be a quantum fluctuation.

I haven't read either, but I'm doubting that it's a strawman. What he's saying sounds reasonable to me, it is however stated in a very brief form - there is a lot more science backing up the assertion.

 

[MRaverz]

I'd say that you were unable to find the quote and would like to see where he got it from, ask him to take a photo of the issue or something?

 

[Ozymandyus]

Don't ask him to take a photo of the issue - he is not quote mining. Many reputable scientists believe the universe may have come from nothing, from quantum fluctuations as Aught mentioned. I've heard this idea before so I certainly would not try to dispute it as a strawman - it's legitimately what some scientists think.

 

[Hwon]

It is definitely not a quote mine, but the context is far more complex than probably what that person is attempting to argue. What some scientists believe and what the evidence my suggest is that a nothingness state doesn't exist or at least what we consider to be nothing might still be something perhaps akin to a kind of ground state of existence.

Point being can one truly call nothing with properties nothing?

 

[Demojen]

Nothing in being is something that's not, but something it is, nonetheless.-RC

To say everything came from "nothing" is a contradiction.
I can agree that everything came from something and that "something" is self perpetuating but can not see a logical foundation for stating anything came from nothing.

I will however state rather conclusively that I do not believe in God nor any something(creator) that is God or whatever we may be subscribed to believing it is.

 

[mandangalo18]

Don't ask him to take a photo of the issue - he is not quote mining. Many reputable scientists believe the universe may have come from nothing, from quantum fluctuations as Aught mentioned. I've heard this idea before so I certainly would not try to dispute it as a strawman - it's legitimately what some scientists think.

well that makes things much more difficult

 

[Demojen]

I should specify that this something may be something(s)

 

[e2iPi]

well that makes things much more difficult

Not really. The origin of the universe is, indeed, an open question and is one which we have very little hope of answering in an empirical way in the foreseeable future. However, this does not imply that some supernatural entity created the universe. A full discussion of the various ideas being tossed about in the the theoretical physics community is beyond the scope of any forum post--and would be simply incomprehensible to most people without at least and undergraduate education in physics--but suffice to say that "we don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. There is no need for god.

-1

 

[xman]

While it may be considered from time to time that ex nihilo is a valid supposition, ex sungularum should be more readily propagated.

 

[borrofburi]

"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer, and it is not at all acceptable to conclude "god did it" from "I don't know".

Don't ask him to take a photo of the issue - he is not quote mining. Many reputable scientists believe the universe may have come from nothing, from quantum fluctuations as Aught mentioned. I've heard this idea before so I certainly would not try to dispute it as a strawman - it's legitimately what some scientists think.

To be fair, most of them would also say our "everything" is nothing, just an odd variation on nothing (at least if I understand them right). This video is relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[Ozymandyus]

To be fair, most of them would also say our "everything" is nothing, just an odd variation on nothing (at least if I understand them right). This video is relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Indeed that is relevant. That most of them would say our 'everything' is nothing, I would certainly dispute though... Perhaps it mathematically adds up to nothing, but it is quite obviously something. They probably would more say that our idea of nothing is flawed, that there was something - that is, there was quantum foam and quantum perturbations and all that junk before there was ever anything resembling the universe we have now.

So in a way saying that everything came from nothing is a sort of quotemine, I guess - in that everything came from what we often describe as nothing, which is, in fact, something - quite incomprehensible. But I suppose it would be easy to get from there to God, which is ultimately the problem when you start talking about quantum physics.

Speaking about the beginning of the universe is not really a good idea, as it is so hard to fathom that the only possible answer that laymen (or even a preeminent scientist really) can end at is 'I dont know' or 'God did it'.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Personally, I've never been particularly happy with the idea of a quantum fluctuation without the existence of some form of primordial energy.

I'm sure the mathematics are esoteric for the quantum fluctuation hypothesis/theory, but one does wonder how can you have a quantum - much less a fluctuation - without some form of pre-existing state (i.e., primordial energy)?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[e2iPi]

Personally, I've never been particularly happy with the idea of a quantum fluctuation without the existence of some form of primordial energy.

I'm sure the mathematics are esoteric for the quantum fluctuation hypothesis/theory, but one does wonder how can you have a quantum - much less a fluctuation - without some form of pre-existing state (i.e., primordial energy)?

It is rather esoteric even without the mathematics. Essentially, what we describe as space and time break down at the plank scale which is where quantum fluctuations take place. So that something is what we would quite logically describe as nothing. From this perspective, asking what came before the big bang is akin to asking what is north of the north pole.

An interesting consequence of inflation theory, however, is that it provides for "universe creation" to be self-replicating. In effect, we live in the middle of a 98 billion light-year bubble-along with an infinite number of other bubbles. Perhaps a big bang is created every time bubbles collide?

There are thousands of pages of beautiful mathematics, plausible hypothesizes and logical reasoning about the origins of our universe. All that being said, however, we are still left with one fact: It is still speculation--there is currently no way, even in theory, to see beyond our observable universe into what lies beyond. We are forever trapped behind the event horizon we call the big bang.

-1

 

[mandangalo18]

thanks for the input everyone

 

[Hwon]

Personally, I've never been particularly happy with the idea of a quantum fluctuation without the existence of some form of primordial energy.

I'm sure the mathematics are esoteric for the quantum fluctuation hypothesis/theory, but one does wonder how can you have a quantum - much less a fluctuation - without some form of pre-existing state (i.e., primordial energy)?

It is rather esoteric even without the mathematics. Essentially, what we describe as space and time break down at the plank scale which is where quantum fluctuations take place. So that something is what we would quite logically describe as nothing. From this perspective, asking what came before the big bang is akin to asking what is north of the north pole.

An interesting consequence of inflation theory, however, is that it provides for "universe creation" to be self-replicating. In effect, we live in the middle of a 98 billion light-year bubble-along with an infinite number of other bubbles. Perhaps a big bang is created every time bubbles collide?

There are thousands of pages of beautiful mathematics, plausible hypothesizes and logical reasoning about the origins of our universe. All that being said, however, we are still left with one fact: It is still speculation--there is currently no way, even in theory, to see beyond our observable universe into what lies beyond. We are forever trapped behind the event horizon we call the big bang.

-1

It's not just esoteric either, but also difficult for anyone to conceptualize the "beyond". Take your point about bubbles for example. Our perspective from within the universe gives a system of relative position allowing us to observe motion, size, shape, etc... and from these we can describe our universe as an expanding bubble. However, space-time in essence is the area of the bubble that expands and it is confined within it's own boundaries. Perhaps beyond that boundary our universe would have no shape, size, or motion. There wouldn't be relative positions either thus making the concept of "beyond" or "outside" meaningless as well. So the bubble stated might only exists for that which is part of the universe, but the universe as a whole might not exist in the grand scheme of things in a way that can be considered a shape.

 

[Mapp]

A lot of Christians have been passing around that "A Universe from Nothing" lecture on Youtube, which I see has already been posted, in which Lawrence Krauss explained quite clearly that what physicists mean by "nothing" does not mean the same as the conventional definition. It's always fun when I get a link to that from a theist, because it proves, conclusively that they've never watched the video they're sending. Scientists use the term "universe from nothing" in the same tongue and cheek way as they use terms like, "the god particle" or "Mitochondrial Eve."

I've actually had theists explain how Mitochondrial Eve proves scientists believe the Genesis story, I just have to shake my head and laugh.