No, I think you are having trouble understanding the issue. It is a given with everything we know that no natural process can create something out of nothing. It is also impossible to even prove that natural (or supernatural for that matter) process to create something out of nothing. — dclements
I agree that the most that can be done is to challenge what is written about God. As the thread discussion suggests, proving or disproving God is 'difficult' and I would go further and say it is impossible. As you suggest, no holy book can give us an explanation of the underlying laws of nature. I also wonder what is meant by 'nothing' because it does not appear to us but, perhaps, there is more to 'nothing' than what it appears because as it cannot be observed it may be hard to know how or in what way to describe it, and, perhaps, it is something rather than nothing. — Jack Cummins
There are two issues with quantum fluctuations and why we can not claim that they do not create energy from nothing:There are quantum fluctuations, albeit they don't last long. — Michael
I agree. That's why I define my personal First Cause simply as BEING : essential existence. Aquinas defined his God as the Necessary Being, without whom nothing (no beings) would exist. It's the "only thing" that exists absolutely. So simple unitary existence must be the beginning point of all theories of how & why the space-time world exists. Some postulate that space-time/matter-energy is eternal, but the Big Bang cosmology --- including the Big Freeze finale --- put a damper on such speculations. And physical Nature has never been shown to create something from nothing.1. This Permanent Thing would be local everywhere, as it is before and after our universe and during. Further, as it's the only thing, its rearrangements are it too; even we are it. — PoeticUniverse
No, I think you are having trouble understanding the issue. It is a given with everything we know that no natural process can create something out of nothing. It is also impossible to even prove that natural (or supernatural for that matter) process to create something out of nothing.
One can say it is possible for a "supernatural process"( a process that breaks one or more of the physical laws that have applied to every natural process that human have observed throughout history)
to create something from nothing but you CAN NOT state with any authority that something CAN come from nothing from either a "supernatural process" or otherwise because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something can come from nothing. — dclements
That would be virtual particles,There are quantum fluctuations, albeit they don't last long. — Michael
Quantum fluctuationVacuum fluctuations appear as virtual particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs.
The empty vacuum of space is really not empty and the ephemeral particles and/or quantum foam that barely exists in this emptiness can change states just enough to make it appear as if matter/energy is popping into and then out of existence. — dclements
Even "if" these virtual particles don't enable the quantum fluctuations to pop into and out of existence it is a given that some other energy, force, or thing could be causing quantum fluctuations to pop in and out of existence.
I agree. That's why I define my personal First Cause simply as BEING : essential existence. — Gnomon
Aquinas defined his God as the Necessary Being, without whom nothing (no beings) would exist. It's the "only thing" that exists absolutely. — Gnomon
So simple unitary existence must be the beginning point of all theories of how & why the space-time world exists. — Gnomon
Some postulate that space-time/matter-energy is eternal, but the Big Bang cosmology --- including the Big Freeze finale --- put a damper on such speculations. And physical Nature has never been shown to create something from nothing. — Gnomon
the "hard problem" is to determine what that hypothetical "permanent thing" was, in a more definitive sense. For my money though, the eternally un-changing Ideality answers make more sense, than anything resembling our temporal and ever-changing impermanent Reality. — Gnomon
G*D : An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. — Gnomon
If you wish to believe whatever you want to believe what you say might be true, but in order for what you believe to stand up to the scrutiny of other people arguments you have to be able to have some way to prove what you say has some validity. Otherwise as my fellow forum member 180 Proof has often pointed out:Indeed it would be impossible to empirically prove "supernatural", but same way it doesn't make sense to ask for empirical (natural) proof to prove supernatural.: — SpaceDweller
As for religious portion of your post I'll abstain from turning this into a religious debate.
In any case I'm not trying nor searching for any proof beyond philosophical. :smile: — SpaceDweller
You may say it potato and I say it potato or vice-versa but there really isn't a difference as far as I can tell. The thing I read explained that how quantum fluctuations where possible because in the ether of vacuum of space the space isn't really "empty" (ie it requires some kind of matter/energy to exist) and because it isn't empty it can create quantum fluctuations. What it sound like is how it was explained to you as that we can deduce that the vacuum of space isn't because it allows for quantum fluctuations to happen. I don't know which is a more accurate description as I'm not one who has studied the field of quantum physics, but I'm not sure if it really makes a difference and/or if it really relevant to this discussion. If it is please explain it further or point out a source that does.You have it backwards. The vacuum of space isn't "really" empty because quantum fluctuations happen. — Michael
I think you misunderstand the facts that you read and are merely assuming something due to some misunderstanding. The thing I have up to now have be calling "process theory" (because I couldn't remember what it was really called) is really called the "Conservation Law" in physics. There is even a wiki page about it and such:It could be, but we have no evidence of such a thing. In fact, quantum fluctuations as something-from-nothing are a consequence of the uncertainty principle which we have many reasons to believe is true. — Michael
Yes. As a Catholic theologian, his philosophical definition had to resemble the official Bible-God, which is described both as an eternal principle (similar to Brahman or Tao), and as a humanoid person, with some un-god-like human attributes, such as a fragile ego, and a quick temper (like Zeus). Nevertheless, I find his rational philosophical God to be closer to my own than the typical bible-thumper's hell-fire War-Lord of the World. But, I actually go back to Aristotle's non-religious ideal principles for my god-model.Aquinas makes an unwarranted leap here to a Being having Mind because he wants 'God'. — PoeticUniverse
In my worldview, the First Cause (Creator) must be eternal (timeless) and simple (in the sense of atomic Holism). However, in order to produce the space-time world --- that we know & love, and grumble about --- the Cosmic Cause must have the infinite Potential to subdivide the whole into subordinate parts, while remaining more than the sum of the parts. And the power to create beings that not only have living bodies, but also thinking & planning minds. Consequently, a physical deity would not suffice. Only a metaphysical BEING could be "partless and continuous" (no elementary particles). In order to be Eternal and Necessary and Creative, that First Cause would have to comply with Aristotle's metaphor of a Seed of Potential. The seed is not a tree, but it contains coded information (DNA) that can be transformed into a full-grown tree.That's better; I hope Aquinas is listening. It's not only simple as a necessity for its forming of the lightweight elementaries but also because its needs to be partless and continuous to be Absolute as Fundamental. It would not be able to think, plan, and create via a System of Mind as the ultimate simplicity; however, so it is that the lesser leads to the greater, not as Aquinas' view that is the reverse and would lead to an infinite regress of greaters making lessers. — PoeticUniverse
My hypothetical G*D "is" and always was. It's simple, in the sense of an undivided Whole, but in order to create, must have the power & potential to produce a physical world, not from Material, but from Ideas (Information). Since G*D per se is no-physical-thing, it is "Null" in terms of actual things. However, it must also be All-metaphysical-things in the sense of creative Potential. Hence, "Full" of unformed possibilities.'Is', not 'was'. It's enough to know that it's the simplest possible, it being the closest to Null that could be. It's extremely far from Full, for as Full it could not rearrange. — PoeticUniverse
Yes! Absolutely. If the First Cause did not have the Power to conceive a world,, how could human minds emerge from the rough & tumble of mindless Evolution. The conceptual leap is from a humanoid god-concept to an abstract philosophical principle :Mind qua Mind = intellect, consciousness, thoughtG*D—God Damn! To boldly jump to it having Mind is a leap much more than a tiny quantum jump. — PoeticUniverse
BEING (being qua being) would not "have" a mind or brain, but would be The Mind, in the sense of containing & processing all of the information necessary to create a space-time world from scratch (i.e. physical world from meta-physical design -- an idea & a plan). — Gnomon
If you are ready to jump down the rabbit hole and want to find if anything can break the conservation law and similar laws of physics I wish you luck. — dclements
Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy.
Potential vs Actual :
This connects the matter/form distinction to another key Aristotelian distinction, that between potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (entelecheia) or activity (energeia).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#ActuPote — Gnomon
Can anyone assert this is not fallacy?, it's more correct to say:anything that is capable of being is also capable of not being. What is capable of not being might possibly not be, and what might possibly not be is perishable.
What is the difference between:
"Can theory of nothing challenge God?"
and
"Can nothing challenge God?" — James Riley
Conservation law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law — dclements
Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy.
Therefore philosophical "nothing" definitely can not challenge God, it's up to scientists to define what they mean by "nothing". — SpaceDweller
So you say. And that's a true statement . . . in the physical Real World. But, the metaphysical Ideal Realm may not be bound by the physical rules of thermodynamics. Scientists have long been perplexed by the existence of "Natural Laws" in a dynamic world scrambled by fundamental Randomness. For Plato's Forms, actual complexity is not "just sitting around already complete". Instead, a Metaphysical Form is merely the Potential Design for a future thing, that must then be Actualized, sometimes by a prolonged complex process of evolution, into a Physical Thing.Still can't have 'The Mind' as First and Fundamental even as a Potential that thinks as much as an Actual; complexity can't be just sitting around already complete. — PoeticUniverse
Ok, I guess that is almost a good enough reason as any to start a thread but I hope that you understand through some of my posts how certain things like laws of physics (such as the law of conservation, which I was calling process theory, and the laws of thermodynamics) deal with the issues of the theory of nothing before we even knew anything about quantum fluctuations.Fair point :up: but far from "click bait"
The true reason why I started this thread is because theory of nothing is relatively new theory that is obviously not well defined, and for which I believed is good one to understand what was there before BB if there ever was anything. — SpaceDweller
Being able to dismiss theories or certain people's assumptions is a good thing and more useful then you might think. The more you can just dismiss (such as anything that is just assumed by someone without any proof) without much effort, the less you really have to think or worry about.But I wouldn't dismiss anything however uncertain it may be, because in the end if you dismiss everything then what do you have left to work with? I guess "nothing" :meh: — SpaceDweller
Your welcome. :DYour links and propositions indeed helped me to get better understanding, thanks! — SpaceDweller
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. — Michael
Of course, the upshot of the sermon would be "No! Nothing can challenge God!" They lure in the sheep with a temptation of controversy, only to shut it down. Meanwhile, some little kid in the pews is wondering: "Wait, if God is really God, can't he challenge himself? If not, is God nothing, or not nothing, or both? — James Riley
Awesome insight! who would though of misinformation on wiki.Q) Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?
A)No! Saying that quantum mechanics does not conserve energy is misinterpreting quantum mechanics. — dclements
Coincidence vs Creation :
Laws of Nature’s God
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html — Gnomon
So, was the origin of our world a coincidence or a creation? In any case, the Cosmic Bang was a rare event, not a mere regularity . . . No? [YIN\YANG]
But, the metaphysical Ideal Realm may not be bound by the physical rules of thermodynamics. Scientists have long been perplexed by the existence of "Natural Laws" in a dynamic world scrambled by fundamental Randomness. For Plato's Forms, actual complexity is not "just sitting around already complete". Instead, a Metaphysical Form is merely the Potential Design for a future thing, that must then be Actualized, sometimes by a prolonged complex process of evolution, into a Physical Thing. — Gnomon
That was indeed my choice, many years ago, when I decided that my Back-to-the-Bible religion was no longer believable. However, I had no answer to more general philosophical questions, such as "why are we here?", or "Did something come from nothing". So, for years, I labeled myself an Agnostic (I simply don't know).Given all the discoveries and insights we collected, I think it's rather God or infinity (That is God or I don't know): — SpaceDweller
That may be true of empirical Science. But not of theoretical Philosophy. Yet, the best they could come up with is a mysterious hypothetical First Cause that at least terminates the regression of Evolution at a Question Mark (Singularity ; God ; Logos, ?) instead of a never-ending tower-of-turtles ellipsis (multiverse ; many worlds) . . . . .One cannot even hope to have an 'explanation' that itself would need all the more explanation, to the nth degree, even, plus as a regress. — PoeticUniverse
That may be true of empirical Science. But not of theoretical Philosophy. Yet, the best they could come up with is a mysterious hypothetical First Cause that at least terminates the regression of Evolution at a Question Mark (Singularity ; God ; Logos, ?) instead of a never-ending tower-of-turtles ellipsis (multiverse ; many worlds) . . . . . — Gnomon
But, sadly, no hope for salvation from an imperfect creation. — Gnomon
But, sadly, no hope for salvation from an imperfect creation. — Gnomon
As a philosophical hypothesis, I would use the term "inferred". In my Enformationism thesis I provide the factual basis and the reasoning. "To Deem" is to have an opinion. But "to infer" is to have good reasons. Of course, all inferences, scientific or philosophical, are uncertain. To "infer" a Big Bang from astronomical evidence doesn't "make" a universe from nothing. But, so far, nobody has come up with a better solution to the perennial philosophical "why" questions. So, G*D is my "theory", and I'm sticking to it. :joke:The 'theoretical' Philosophy has no theory in concluding "deemed to be God" because 'deeming' doesn't make 'God'. — PoeticUniverse
Is anything in this world perfect? My religious up-bringing repeatedly pointed to the imperfection of humans, and human logic. But then, it pointed to a leather-bound book, and declared that it was "perfect" as a revelation from God.Therefore using same logic, Spinoza's view that God = nature and nature = God is imperfect as well. — SpaceDweller
My worldview acknowledges the imperfections of our beloved world, and offers a rationale for a less-than-ideal creation of a World Creator : it ain't perfect until it's over. Nothing that changes will ever be perfect (whole, complete), until it ceases to change. Perfection has no room for evolution. So, our role is merely to evolve, until we can't go no mo'.It fails. Our universe is not perfect, nor it is completely mathematically elegant, for there are superfluous entities in it, along with a lot of waste. — PoeticUniverse
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.