Total Posts:118|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can something come from nothing?

Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 9:10:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Or, for that matter: Can something come from something?

Not in any net sense, it would seem; I think it's more appropriate to interpret the nihil fit principle as a special case of this.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2013 11:45:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 8:59:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

I know there's been a lot of talk about this lately, but 0+0=0. You must add something to the mix the get something back. True nothing isn't space, which has physical properties of its own. True nothing has no space ... occupies no space. I think this is another good example of the problems that arise when you lean too heavily on mathematical models to draw conclusions.
boss1592
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 3:05:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 11:45:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/8/2013 8:59:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

I know there's been a lot of talk about this lately, but 0+0=0. You must add something to the mix the get something back. True nothing isn't space, which has physical properties of its own. True nothing has no space ... occupies no space. I think this is another good example of the problems that arise when you lean too heavily on mathematical models to draw conclusions.

The trouble with that idea is that something can't be added to the mix, because there is no mix for something to be added to. The idea of adding something to nothing is logically incoherent, perhaps even more so than the idea of something coming from nothing uncaused. We know from quantum mechanics that uncaused events do happen, though I don't think these are an example of something coming from nothing as the universe obviously already exists.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 3:18:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 8:59:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Depends on how you define "nothing", and I'm not sure it's a coherent concept.

For something to come from nothing, nothing would have to exist, which is a contradiction in terms.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Charos
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 6:26:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 8:59:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

No, though I don't know that I'd agree that what it comes out of necessarily need be "something" as we understand it (as far as being something extant within the physical world). This isn't necessarily a promotion of this idea since there are quite a number of alternatives and neither I or anyone quite "knows" as of yet, but look at M-Theory's model of brane's and the postulation the universe came from the collision of membranes within which universes exist. Honestly the only truly honest response to this kind of question would be at the moment "I'm really not sure as of yet", we have some good ideas supported by the math and that fit quite well within the framework of what we've observed, but none of them are tested, or even really testable, at the present time.
*+_Charos_+*

"Verily, I have often laughed at weaklings
who thought themselves good because
they had no claws"
--Nietzsche
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:30:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nothing equals the absence of everything. Or at least, that's the best way we can understand it. If nothing is the absence of everything, then logical laws are absent from "nothing", which means that you can't subscribe whatever laws to nothingness that seems to make the thought that something can come from nothing wrong. 0 + 0 = 0 is a mathematical laws that doesn't apply to nothingness, since nothing applies to "nothing". You can't use logic like that to prove nothing can come from nothing, because logic is absent from "nothing". It also means that nothing does not have the potential to become something but that is merely because there isn't any property that nothingness possesses. Potential is meaningless to apply to "nothing", so it doesn't refute the fact that something can come from nothing. There are no logical applications to "nothing".

So we can't say that something cannot come from nothing, but I'm not sure we can say something can come from nothing either since that seems to be attributing a logical fact to "nothing" when there is nothing logical about "nothing".
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:34:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 3:18:59 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/8/2013 8:59:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Depends on how you define "nothing", and I'm not sure it's a coherent concept.

For something to come from nothing, nothing would have to exist, which is a contradiction in terms.

Not really. For something to come from nothing there would have to be nothing and then be something, which does not require "nothing" to exist. Nothing would exist but not "nothing" if you get my meaning.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:39:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 3:18:59 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/8/2013 8:59:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

Depends on how you define "nothing", and I'm not sure it's a coherent concept.

For something to come from nothing, nothing would have to exist, which is a contradiction in terms.

Only if you make the very bizarre decision to define 'nothingness' as having an existence. For something to have come from nothing, there must simply have been a lack of something and then something. At no point does 'nothing' have an existential value other than 'false' and it necessarily always has such a value. The whole question is whether everything that has ever had a 'true' value at some prior point universally had 'false' values.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:45:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

The law is dependent on there being something for it to describe. You might as well try and apply the rules of chess to a game of tennis; they are not applicable beyond the system they describe.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:51:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:45:51 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

The law is dependent on there being something for it to describe. You might as well try and apply the rules of chess to a game of tennis; they are not applicable beyond the system they describe.

It explicitly states that matter can't be created, so wouldn't matter coming to existence with no traceable source count as the matter being created?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:51:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/8/2013 11:45:19 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/8/2013 8:59:56 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Discuss...

I know there's been a lot of talk about this lately, but 0+0=0.

Yes. However 0 = -1,000,000 + 1,000,0000

Most scientists now believe that the universe has a zero sum energy because the negative energy balances out the positive. Thus, you can get everything you see from 0 energy at all.

You must add something to the mix the get something back. True nothing isn't space, which has physical properties of its own. True nothing has no space ... occupies no space. I think this is another good example of the problems that arise when you lean too heavily on mathematical models to draw conclusions.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 9:58:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:51:01 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:45:51 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

The law is dependent on there being something for it to describe. You might as well try and apply the rules of chess to a game of tennis; they are not applicable beyond the system they describe.

It explicitly states that matter can't be created, so wouldn't matter coming to existence with no traceable source count as the matter being created?

Nothingness is not something and thus not subject to such constraints. You are basically saying that 'something cannot from nothing in the context of something'. You are arguing from within reality (matter) without addressing the structure that provides for it and the alternate from which the structure differentiates itself.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:04:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think the universe came from nothing, but if the universe came into being, it came into being from a state of affairs lacking the universe. I see no reason to call that "nothing".
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:04:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:58:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:51:01 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:45:51 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

The law is dependent on there being something for it to describe. You might as well try and apply the rules of chess to a game of tennis; they are not applicable beyond the system they describe.

It explicitly states that matter can't be created, so wouldn't matter coming to existence with no traceable source count as the matter being created?


Nothingness is not something and thus not subject to such constraints. You are basically saying that 'something cannot from nothing in the context of something'. You are arguing from within reality (matter) without addressing the structure that provides for it and the alternate from which the structure differentiates itself.

Why would matter need to be provided for, and what alternate form can the "structure" (to which I am guessing you mean spacetime) differentiate itself?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:08:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

Scientific laws apply to the universe, to matter. Applying them to "nothing" is misunderstanding what nothingness is. Nothing is the absence of everything and therefore absent of laws. You can't apply laws of science to nothing since laws of science are only applicable to something.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:10:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:08:00 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

Scientific laws apply to the universe, to matter. Applying them to "nothing" is misunderstanding what nothingness is. Nothing is the absence of everything and therefore absent of laws. You can't apply laws of science to nothing since laws of science are only applicable to something.

Then what does it mean to "create" matter as far as the law of conservation of mass is concerned?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:13:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 9:51:01 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:45:51 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

The law is dependent on there being something for it to describe. You might as well try and apply the rules of chess to a game of tennis; they are not applicable beyond the system they describe.

It explicitly states that matter can't be created, so wouldn't matter coming to existence with no traceable source count as the matter being created?

The point is, in nothingness there are no laws and nothing for these non-existent laws to govern. Extending the laws describing the interaction of things that exist to also preside over non-existence is nonsensical; they wouldn't exist and would have nothing to dictate the behaviour of even if they did.

The laws of physics are not literally existent, tangible things; they are our descriptions of how a particular complex system - namely the universe - operates. It seems to me entirely likely (perhaps even necessary, but I'd have to have a think about that before committing that far) that they are descriptions of emergent interactions - although of course I can only guess at what they are 'really' between.

The point is, we have no idea and unfounded guessing is pointless. All we can say is that they appear to universally apply to everything we have ever tested. It seems likely that they do apply to the entire universe, since the continued verification of them in every single test seems to indicate such, but we are simply making a reasonable assumption in saying that they do. If it turns out they don't, we will need a new theory.

On the other hand, we have no reason to believe they extend beyond the universe. In fact, a definition of universe could be given as "everything that exists and interacts according to the laws of physics". No universe, no things existing and interacting and therefore no laws describing their interactions. To assume otherwise is to make an unreasonable assumption at best and - as I write, I become more convinced - semantic nonsense at worst.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:15:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:10:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 10:08:00 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

Scientific laws apply to the universe, to matter. Applying them to "nothing" is misunderstanding what nothingness is. Nothing is the absence of everything and therefore absent of laws. You can't apply laws of science to nothing since laws of science are only applicable to something.

Then what does it mean to "create" matter as far as the law of conservation of mass is concerned?

That's in the context of the universe. Matter always comes from something in this universe. Scientific laws do not apply to outside this universe. Please stop holding on to an obviously refuted argument.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:16:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:10:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 10:08:00 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

Scientific laws apply to the universe, to matter. Applying them to "nothing" is misunderstanding what nothingness is. Nothing is the absence of everything and therefore absent of laws. You can't apply laws of science to nothing since laws of science are only applicable to something.

Then what does it mean to "create" matter as far as the law of conservation of mass is concerned?

To add to the sum total of the pre-existing system. The law is that the universe cannot gain or lose net mass/energy, as a local gain in one area must be accounted for by local loss(es) elsewhere. The universe seems perfectly able to grow in size, but it is apparently incapable of growing in stuffness.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:23:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:13:52 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:51:01 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:45:51 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

The law is dependent on there being something for it to describe. You might as well try and apply the rules of chess to a game of tennis; they are not applicable beyond the system they describe.

It explicitly states that matter can't be created, so wouldn't matter coming to existence with no traceable source count as the matter being created?

The point is, in nothingness there are no laws and nothing for these non-existent laws to govern. Extending the laws describing the interaction of things that exist to also preside over non-existence is nonsensical; they wouldn't exist and would have nothing to dictate the behaviour of even if they did.

Right, which is why I am saying that we should look at it from the perspective of the theoretical matter (something) that has appeared to pop into existence (nothing). Then the laws do work, because when we attempt to look into the matters' past, we find a point at which no matter came before it, and therefore it couldn't have existed. It isn't as much saying that something dictates nothing, but rather that if that law works for everything in the universe, then when you try and trace the evidence of all matter, you still end up with the same amount of matter (Big Bang)
.

The laws of physics are not literally existent, tangible things; they are our descriptions of how a particular complex system - namely the universe - operates. It seems to me entirely likely (perhaps even necessary, but I'd have to have a think about that before committing that far) that they are descriptions of emergent interactions - although of course I can only guess at what they are 'really' between.

I know that the "laws" are just ways to describe things, and thinking about them as interactions does make sense.

The point is, we have no idea and unfounded guessing is pointless. All we can say is that they appear to universally apply to everything we have ever tested. It seems likely that they do apply to the entire universe, since the continued verification of them in every single test seems to indicate such, but we are simply making a reasonable assumption in saying that they do. If it turns out they don't, we will need a new theory.

Well of course it's pointless, but it makes a nice discussion.

On the other hand, we have no reason to believe they extend beyond the universe. In fact, a definition of universe could be given as "everything that exists and interacts according to the laws of physics". No universe, no things existing and interacting and therefore no laws describing their interactions. To assume otherwise is to make an unreasonable assumption at best and - as I write, I become more convinced - semantic nonsense at worst.

Also a sound statement about cosmology (or rather, what extends beyond cosmology).
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:25:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:16:27 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/9/2013 10:10:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 10:08:00 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

Scientific laws apply to the universe, to matter. Applying them to "nothing" is misunderstanding what nothingness is. Nothing is the absence of everything and therefore absent of laws. You can't apply laws of science to nothing since laws of science are only applicable to something.

Then what does it mean to "create" matter as far as the law of conservation of mass is concerned?

To add to the sum total of the pre-existing system. The law is that the universe cannot gain or lose net mass/energy, as a local gain in one area must be accounted for by local loss(es) elsewhere. The universe seems perfectly able to grow in size, but it is apparently incapable of growing in stuffness.

So if the sum total is zero (nothing) than adding anything (something) is breaking the law, and therefore shouldn't be possible?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:27:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:15:58 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 10:10:36 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 10:08:00 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

Scientific laws apply to the universe, to matter. Applying them to "nothing" is misunderstanding what nothingness is. Nothing is the absence of everything and therefore absent of laws. You can't apply laws of science to nothing since laws of science are only applicable to something.

Then what does it mean to "create" matter as far as the law of conservation of mass is concerned?

That's in the context of the universe. Matter always comes from something in this universe. Scientific laws do not apply to outside this universe. Please stop holding on to an obviously refuted argument.

So, we are discussing things that can happen outside the universe?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:38:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:23:20 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
Right, which is why I am saying that we should look at it from the perspective of the theoretical matter (something) that has appeared to pop into existence (nothing). Then the laws do work, because when we attempt to look into the matters' past, we find a point at which no matter came before it, and therefore it couldn't have existed. It isn't as much saying that something dictates nothing, but rather that if that law works for everything in the universe, then when you try and trace the evidence of all matter, you still end up with the same amount of matter (Big Bang)

The laws do not exist until the matter exists. They cannot prevent it coming into existence, because until the point that it has already done this there are no laws to prevent it from doing so.

Also a sound statement about cosmology (or rather, what extends beyond cosmology).

What is? There's nothing 'sound' about statements like "nothing would have existence" or "laws that do not exist forbid their own coming to exist" at all, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:41:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:25:55 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
So if the sum total is zero (nothing) than adding anything (something) is breaking the law, and therefore shouldn't be possible?

If there is nothing then there is no system and no rules governing any systems at all, including the system within which the law of the conservation of energy applies. I honestly do not understand what you are finding so hard about this; for the laws to be applied, something must first exist. If nothing exists, the laws cannot be applied - due to they themselves not existing - and therefore it is senseless to talk of them being 'broken'.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:44:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:04:21 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:58:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:51:01 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:45:51 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:43:27 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:37:30 AM, phantom wrote:
At 11/9/2013 9:34:38 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
If nothing is the lack of something, than no, as that breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

You can't apply physical or logical laws to nothingness.

That being said, if you observed an small enough area (down to Planck scales), then a particle moving into that area might appear as if it came from nowhere.

But we are talking about gaining something from nothing, and when looked at from the perspective of the something, the lack of being able to be trace the something to the same amount of something in the past breaks the law.

The law is dependent on there being something for it to describe. You might as well try and apply the rules of chess to a game of tennis; they are not applicable beyond the system they describe.

It explicitly states that matter can't be created, so wouldn't matter coming to existence with no traceable source count as the matter being created?


Nothingness is not something and thus not subject to such constraints. You are basically saying that 'something cannot from nothing in the context of something'. You are arguing from within reality (matter) without addressing the structure that provides for it and the alternate from which the structure differentiates itself.

Why would matter need to be provided for, and what alternate form can the "structure" (to which I am guessing you mean spacetime) differentiate itself?

Because existence requires a function which distinguishes that which is from that which is not. Nothingness is the utter lack of constraint from which reality constraints upon itself, thus "recognizing" its own existence.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 10:45:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 10:41:12 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 11/9/2013 10:25:55 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
So if the sum total is zero (nothing) than adding anything (something) is breaking the law, and therefore shouldn't be possible?

If there is nothing then there is no system and no rules governing any systems at all, including the system within which the law of the conservation of energy applies. I honestly do not understand what you are finding so hard about this; for the laws to be applied, something must first exist. If nothing exists, the laws cannot be applied - due to they themselves not existing - and therefore it is senseless to talk of them being 'broken'.

What is making this hard for me to understand is the fact that the law states that matter can't be created, it doesn't say anything about needing matter there as a prerequisite for being applicable to anything (except for the destruction part). If you have nothing, then according to the law you can't create anything, because there is nothing there to be manipulated into existence in the first place. The law is about not being allowed to create matter, so why would the lack of matter be a problem, as wouldn't it fit perfectly into the law?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown