Spontaneously appeared? Not possible… it would have been from something. How can something come from nothing please explain. — kindred

How can nothing always exist? Doesn't that mean it spontaneously always was? How is your idea any different in plausibility than mine?

I have no qualms with the idea of an eternal or divine being, but logically you can't have qualms with something spontaneously appearing either if that's the case.

How can something come from nothing please explain. — kindred

I'm not saying this as a Christian evangalist, because I'm not one - but this is precisely what 'Creation Ex Nihilo' means. It means, 'created from nothing'.

A Catholic scholar notes: 'The Greek natural philosophers were quite correct in saying that from nothing, nothing comes. But by “comes” they meant a change from one state to another, which requires some underlying material reality. It also requires some pre-existing possibility for that change, a possibility that resides in something.

Creation, on the other hand, is the radical causing of the whole existence of whatever exists. To be the complete cause of something’s existence is not the same as producing a change in something. It is not a matter of taking something and making it into something else, as if there were some primordial matter which God had to use to create the universe. Rather, Creation is the result of the divine agency being totally responsible for the production, all at once and completely, of the whole of the universe, with all it entities and all its operations, from absolutely nothing pre-existing' (from Catholic Answers).

Creation from nothing might sound preposterous - but stop and consider what the cosmology of the so-called 'Big Bang' implies. It is that the entire vast universe 'exploded' into existence from a single infinitely hot and dense point, 'the singularity'. It would be a mistake to try and envisage that as 'an explosion', however, as there is no 'outside' from which to envisage it. Everything we know exists, is 'inside' that event; there was no space into which it could have 'exploded'.

But the resonance between this idea, and creation from nothing, seems clear. And indeed, Pope Pius X11 said, in 1951, that:

it seems that the science of today, by going back in one leap millions of centuries, has succeeded in being a witness to that primordial Fiat Lux ('Let there be Light') when, out of nothing, there burst forth with matter a sea of light and radiation [... Thus modern science has confirmed] with the concreteness of physical proofs the contingency of the universe and the well-founded deduction that about that time the cosmos issued from the hand of the Creator.

However, get this: Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest and scientist, and the discoverer of the 'Big Bang' cosmology (although it wasn't called that at the time) 'was reportedly horrified by that intervention and was later able, with the assistance of Father Daniel O'Connell, the director of the Vatican Observatory, to convince the Pope not make any further public statements on religious or philosophical interpretations of matters concerning physical cosmology.' He felt it was wrong to try and support the articles of faith with reference to science (and vice versa). Wikipedia

The question concerns eternal being as well as far as the argument goes if something can’t come from nothing then something has always existed, timeless and uncaused. If it’s timeless then either it already possessed intelligence or if not then during a fraction of eternity developed it.

I can’t fault your reasoning, but to get past this point there are a couple of things worth contemplating.
First the idea of transcendence, that one reality can be influenced by another of another order. Say a person can be affected by a divine being. The important thing here is that the two beings are in totally different, or separate arenas of existence. Meaning that something of a purely divine world can influence, or access something in a purely physical world. With no causal link as such, but some inherent propensity for contact to be made. An analogy might be a wormhole in space.

Secondly that the divine creator is external to time and space, so talking of forever, or something coming from nothing, or infinite regress don’t answer anything. They only introduce constraints and to get past these constraints one needs to have a way of thinking about an entity external to time and space, our time and space. While occupying its own kind of time and space independent from ours. A good way to imagine this is to think of a divine creator creating universes like a seed, or egg. So in the creators world you might have a packet of seeds, or eggs. But from our perspective, from inside the seed, or egg, all we see and know is an entire universe within that seed, or egg and we can’t see, or envisage anything beyond it.

What this way of thinking allows is for a more subtle way of thinking, in which the normal rational constraints can be put to one side and a more transcendent way of thinking about things can be developed.

We can not truly know the nature of such a being which is intelligent and having always existed so for now it remains an ontological mystery. — kindred

The Bible claims to have solved the mystery of existence in the myth of Genesis, along with direct revelations to humans over the subsequent centuries. And mystics claim to "know" that supernatural being personally. Yet, I don't accept the authority of the Catholic Bible, compiled 3 centuries after the death of Jesus. So, the ultimate Cause of the eventual emergence of Intelligence remains an "ontological mystery" to me. But I have my philosophical theories. :smile:

I have no qualms with the idea of an eternal or divine being, but logically you can't have qualms with something spontaneously appearing either if that's the case. — Philosophim

My argument is for the existence of something rather than nothing. Which is a brute fact, in that no leaps would have to be made for something spontaneously appearing if we posit that something has always been and is eternal by nature.

On the other hand you have to scientifically or metaphysically demonstrate how something can come from nothing … which to me seems impossible.

Yet the argument goes like this: creation ex nihilo would imply the existence of god which is something so it creation did not really come from nothing… unless I’ve misunderstood your argument of creation ex nihilo.

Prior to the big bang there must have been something which transformed into the big bang else there would have been no time space or matter. To posit that there was nothing before the big bang is to be faced with the question of where did this matter come from …

Two options answer this question … nothing or something. But as the Greeks correctly noted nothing comes from nothing then there must have been something. This something cannot be other than it has always been. So in this respect creation ex nihilo does not make sense as it must have been caused by something which itself has no cause for its existence, having always existed.

Yes the realm of where divinity resides in terms of laws of physics, time and space could be different from our realm of physical existence. It could be that it exists on a non-linear frame where causality is not the same as ours. It could also be that it’s both transcendent and immanent having the ability to affect this physical universe including the emergence of life without affecting the non goal nature of evolution itself but providing the initial spark for life to form.

So, the ultimate Cause of the eventual emergence of Intelligence remains an "ontological mystery" to me. But I have my philosophical theories. :smile: — Gnomon

Sure I would be interested to hear how and why the eventual emergence of intelligence occurred.

Sure I would be interested to hear how and why the eventual emergence of intelligence occurred. — kindred

If you are really interested in an amateur philosopher's opinion of the natural evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind, you could start with the original Enformationism Thesis. However, the Introduction to Enformationism blog post*1 might get you up to speed quicker, with somewhat less technical stuff. It's based on Quantum Physics and Information Theory, but from a philosophical perspective, which does not accept ancient Materialism as a modern post-quantum worldview.

Yet, it does apply Plato's ancient notion of Form as a precursor of the 21st century understanding of both Energy and Information*2. Also, it takes, as an axiom, that Aristotle's hypothetical First Cause initiated the Big Bang, with its otherwise inexplicable cosmic scale Energy (exceptionally low Entropy*3) and Natural Laws (limitations on the application of energy).

Be warned though, "The Enformationism thesis alone will not solve all the conundrums and contradictions of modern Science. But it may point in a new direction, toward a future solution". If, after 5 pages, you are mystified*4 by the unfamiliar theoretical & empirical concepts, please click on the last page popup : Abstract of the Enformationism Thesis. :smile:



*1. Introduction to Enformationism
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

*2. I emphasize the term “Information” in order to show that ultimately, Mind consists of essentially the same kind of stuff as Matter. Therefore, it should no longer be considered a mystery or miracle that consciousness could arise from material substrates.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page81.html
Note --- That "stuff" is not tangible Matter, but invisible Energy as indicated by Einstein's equation :
[E=MC^2] where M is a mathematical measure of Mass (inertia), and C is the speed of light. The combination of M & C is what we call Matter : a slowed-down & condensed form of Energy.

*3. The universe began with exceptionally low entropy because matter was distributed with extreme uniformity, allowing for massive future increases in gravitational clumping (forming stars and black holes). This initial, highly ordered "smooth" state is considered an exceptionally rare starting condition, likely linked to rapid post-Big Bang expansion or, according to some theories, the result of pinching off from a larger, higher-entropy parent universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=why+did+the+universe+start+with+low+entropy&zx=1771188297986&no_sw_cr=1
Note --- The notion of a "parent universe" (eternal multiverse) is not based on evidence, but on a desire to defend Materialism, and to avoid any supernatural implications.

*4.Since this an amateur philosophical thesis, it’s not censored by academic oversight, or professionally committed to current mainstream dogmas of modern Science. So, it freely adopts some metaphysical ideas that may sound like Eastern or New Age Mysticism. For the record though, the thesis does not espouse any Magical or Psychic phenomena.
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page85.html
Note --- Metaphysics is the study of non-physical aspects of reality, such as Ideas & Theories. Brains are physical, but Minds are meta-physical.

Does intelligence have an origin, a time when it first appeared or is it like the nature of reality timeless and uncaused ? — kindred

Hoyle proposes that the universe itself possesses intelligence (hence the title!) which engenders life through finely-tuned physical constants (e.g., Hoyle's discovery of carbon resonance). Evolutionary Input: Earthly evolution is not solely driven by natural selection, but by the influx of viruses and bacteria from space, which can introduce new traits or even explain the rapid development of human intelligence. — Wayfarer

Intelligence has an origin -- it did not exist before RNA and proto-life. I think the disagreement would be over our attitude towards intelligence itself. We judge it emotionally, I guess. So that only mammals, for example, are awarded this name.

On the other hand, just because a molecule had developed a self-replicating property, it doesn't mean it is intelligent. Molecules can evolve and react according to the condition of their surrounding, but this is also not intelligence.

Molecules can evolve and react — L'éléphant

Molecules don't do that - organisms do that. Molecules are acted upon by external factors. But organisms react, adapt, maintain themselves and evolve. That's what makes them organic, as distinct from simply molecular.

Of course, the existence of DNA or something like it is, is required for that to happen. Quite how DNA appeared - not evolved, because evolution can't get started without it - is still and may forever be a mystery.

There is a trend in current biology to attribute forms of intelligence and/or agency to the cellular level of organic life. In other words, not only organisms, but also cells, seem able to act intentionally in pursuit of aims. A current article in New Scientist says:

It might sound outlandish, but biological simulations are indicating that those minuscule units of life (cells), which we usually think about as passive machines – cogs blindly governed by the laws of physics – have their own goals and display agency. Surprisingly, even simple networks of biomolecules appear to display some degree of a self

This makes me wonder if intelligence is not only the product of the brains of the higher animals, but might also be in some sense a causal factor in evolution. As the same article goes on to say:

Not only do these findings have implications for who or what we think of as agents – but they also suggest that agency itself could drive evolution.

The question is: what agent (queue spooky music) :yikes:

It could also be that it’s both transcendent and immanent having the ability to affect this physical universe including the emergence of life without affecting the non goal nature of evolution itself but providing the initial spark for life to form.

Yes, I would go further though, in that the physical world is not real, in the sense that it is an artificial construct. It is real to us, because we are part of it, immersed in it. But in terms of existence and the profound philosophical questions about existence, the physical world does not make sense. It brings up and presents paradoxical inconsistencies. In order to overcome these inconsistencies it may be necessary to consider the divine realm, how it doesn’t fall into the same inconsistencies and how it interacts with and sustains the artificial world we find ourselves in.

Now consider nothing, rather than something. In our world, the question has already been answered and the answer is there is something, so there cannot be nothing. But it might not be that simple, this might be just another inconsistency. For example, if the reality is infinite, then maybe there is a nothing, an infinite distance away. Rather in the divine realm there might be something and nothing together, in fact a thing that is neither something, or nothing, a nothingsomething thing. If you think about it, both nothing and something require a ground, or something else by which to be defined as nothing (something that it is not), or something, that it is. Surely we should consider things that don’t have grounds, they are self sustaining, self perpetuating. So in a sense, they define their own parameters. They define their thing, of which they are some. They define their lack of thing, or nothing, of which they are not.

On the other hand you have to scientifically or metaphysically demonstrate how something can come from nothing … which to me seems impossible — kindred

First, not something coming from nothing, something which wasn't there, then is. Untreated without cause. What created something which has always existed? Nothing. It's untreated without cause. Which means what I am positing is just as likely and scientifically proven as your idea.

What created something which has always existed? Nothing. It's untreated without cause. Which means what I am positing is just as likely and scientifically proven as your idea. — Philosophim

If something has always existed then by definition it’s uncreated. By being uncaused by something else for it to be. This way we don’t just sidestep the issue of something from nothing but deal with it face on.

We cannot ask what created something that has always existed as it has no origin for which to ask about. If something’s always existed then it didn’t need creating.

Nothing on the other hand is impossible to exist on its own without being considered in relation to all that exists. Since there’s something rather than nothing, nothing is impossible to exist if that makes sense.

Intelligence has an origin -- it did not exist before RNA and proto-life. I think the disagreement would be over our attitude towards intelligence itself. We judge it emotionally, I guess. So that only mammals, for example, are awarded this name. — L'éléphant

I’m arguing that in order for such an intelligence to emerge there must have been a prior intelligence which provided the spark of subsequent life/intelligence to occur. Without this life matter would have continued to be inanimate and never really become alive.

So the origin of current life and intelligence must have had a prior intelligent cause. Perhaps either in the shape of a divine
Force, god or even the universe itself possessing some form of intelligent predisposition.

Now consider nothing, rather than something. In our world, the question has already been answered and the answer is there is something, so there cannot be nothing. But it might not be that simple, this might be just another inconsistency. For example, if the reality is infinite, then maybe there is a nothing, an infinite distance away. Rather in the divine realm there might be something and nothing together, in fact a thing that is neither something, or nothing, a nothingsomething thing. If you think about it, both nothing and something require a ground, or something else by which to be defined as nothing (something that it is not), or something, that it is. Surely we should consider things that don’t have grounds, they are self sustaining, self perpetuating. So in a sense, they define their own parameters. They define their thing, of which they are some. They define their lack of thing, or nothing, of which they are not. — Punshhh

If something exists and nothing too then it’s still something combined with nothing.

Pure nothingness as you pointed out would mean the total absence of something or anything. So even on the divine realm would not exist otherwise the divine realm would be nothingness.

If you are really interested in an amateur philosopher's opinion of the natural evolutionary emergence of Life & Mind, you could start with the original Enformationism Thesis. However, the Introduction to Enformationism blog post*1 might get you up to speed quicker, with somewhat less technical stuff. It's based on Quantum Physics and Information Theory, but from a philosophical perspective, which does not accept ancient Materialism as a modern post-quantum worldview — Gnomon

If I understand correctly you’re saying that information is the fundamental aspect of reality. Yet this faces an issue of where and how this information be stored in a universe devoid of material or even energy. If you are claiming that it is more fundamental than energy/matter then you must provide ontological grounds for its existence. As far as I understand information must be stored in a medium such as matter or energy. If energy is fundamental and prior to matter/energy then what is it and how can it be stored in a non physical medium, especially if information gave rise to matter/energy in terms of potential.

The emergence of Intelligence and life in the world — kindred

Misquoting Gandhi and Grinspoon, I think it would be a good idea.

If I understand correctly you’re saying that information is the fundamental aspect of reality. Yet this faces an issue of where and how this information be stored in a universe devoid of material or even energy. If you are claiming that it is more fundamental than energy/matter then you must provide ontological grounds for its existence. As far as I understand information must be stored in a medium such as matter or energy. If energy is fundamental and prior to matter/energy then what is it and how can it be stored in a non physical medium, especially if information gave rise to matter/energy in terms of potential. — kindred

I'm not the one saying that Information is fundamental. It's the scientists I quote that say it. You can read their books to get the details. For example, MIT professor Seth Lloyd : Programming the Universe, The Information Edge: Creation and Destruction in Life.

Metaphysical Information doesn't exist in the same sense that Matter does. So the only "Ontological Grounds" for its existence are rational. Quantum information scientist, Seth Lloyd, doesn't have a laboratory with spectrometers & patch-clamp amplifiers. His lab is more like a think tank.

Your question about how information is stored seems to assume it's a material substance. But it's more like mathematics. Can you store Math in a box or bottle? Seth Lloyd has concluded that the Universe is a Quantum Computer*2. Do you know how information is stored in a physical computer or the human brain? It's stored as ratios between 1 & 0, or as differences (yes/no) and represented in computers by positive or negative electrical voltages. Energy can be stored in a physical medium, but Information is more fundamental (essential) than that. It can be stored in a Mind as an idea or memory. :smile:


*1. Information is increasingly considered a fundamental, nonmaterial entity—sometimes termed the "ontological basement" of reality — comparable to matter and energy. It is defined as the basic, underlying structure (or bits) that defines the state of a system, suggests that the universe functions as a processor of information, and may even explain phenomena like dark matter and energy.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=information+is+fundamental

*2. The universe can be modeled as a giant quantum computer, wherein every particle interaction, from fundamental particle collisions to cosmological evolution, acts as a calculation, processing information rather than just exchanging energy. This computational, digital-physical approach suggests that physical laws act as the code and the universe is constantly updating its own state.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=universe+as+quantum+computer

Then how can the non-material (information) give rise to the material ? Are you saying that it doesn’t and all we are is information tricked into believing that we are physical ?

Then how can the non-material (information) give rise to the material ? Are you saying that it doesn’t and all we are is information tricked into believing that we are physical ? — kindred

That is the question that my thesis attempts to answer*1. Yet it goes on to describe how the power to enform can evolve the Mental aspects of the Material world. The form of Information that I call EnFormAction is best known as Causal Energy, but it also gives rise to malleable Matter*2, and to intelligent Mind : a biological-based information processor.

However, I'm not a scientist, just an amateur philosopher. So, I have no credentials or authority to sway you. You'll have to connect the dots for yourself. Do you have the interest or patience to scan a 5 page summary? If you are confused by quirky Quantum physics, and post-Shannon Information theory, the reasoning & references may be difficult to follow.

Some people have concluded that Reality is indeed an Illusion. But I prefer to say that your Reality is an interpretation of physical evidence : a mental model. Some interpret their experience of the world in terms of Physicalism/Materialism, while others base their world-model on Spiritualism. I have built my model on the theory of Enformationism*1 : Information (power to create intelligible forms) is fundamental to reality. What are the implications of that notion for our modern understanding of the world? :nerd:


*1. Introduction to Enformationism
From Form to Energy to Matter to Mind to Self
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

*2. Energy gives rise to matter primarily through the conversion of high-intensity energy (such as photons or kinetic energy) into mass, as described by Albert Einstein’s equation. When immense energy is concentrated into a tiny volume, it can solidify into particle-antiparticle pairs (like electrons and positrons), a process observed in particle accelerators and high-energy collisions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+does+energy+give+rise+to+matter

Molecules don't do that - organisms do that. Molecules are acted upon by external factors. — Wayfarer

So you haven't heard about molecular evolution?

Molecular evolution describes how inherited DNA and/or RNA change over evolutionary time, and the consequences of this for proteins and other components of cells and organisms. Molecular evolution is the basis of phylogenetic approaches to describing the tree of life. Molecular evolution overlaps with population genetics, especially on shorter timescales. Topics in molecular evolution include the origins of new genes, the genetic nature of complex traits, the genetic basis of adaptation and speciation, the evolution of development, and patterns and processes underlying genomic changes during evolution. — Wikipedia

Notice that it assumes the existence of DNA and RNA, and therefore organisms. It's not a theory of how DNA came into existence nor is it a theory of organic chemistry.

Notice that it assumes the existence of DNA and RNA, and therefore organisms. It's not a theory of how DNA came into existence nor is it a theory of organic chemistry. — Wayfarer

Eerrgh, DNA and RNA are molecules.