Why is there something, rather than nothing ?

[mistermack]

mistermack wrote:

...Because anything coming from nothing is an infinite increase....

True in % terms, not true in absolute terms.

I prefer "comparative terms" to percentage terms.
In maths, one is only one more than zero. But in real life, one shag is infinitely better than none at all.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

mistermack wrote:

...Because anything coming from nothing is an infinite increase....

True in % terms, not true in absolute terms.

I prefer "comparative terms" to percentage terms.
In maths, one is only one more than zero. But in real life, one shag is infinitely better than none at all.

Unless you had a couple of serviceable cormorants...

[jamest]

Nothing is an abstract mathematical/logical concept of thought, so even 'nothing' requires something.

The question, therefore, makes no sense. That is, nothing is an existentially nonsensical notion. Its value to metaphysical thought is literally nothing. Its only value is here, within this relative/comparative sphere of experiential existence.

If you want to engage in metaphysics, you have to forget all about 'nothing'.

[mistermack]

Nothing is an abstract mathematical/logical concept of thought,

That's your theory. but just like the complete opposite, it can't be proved.

Anyway, if that's the case, why is there something? Did it come from an abstract mathematical/logical concept, and where did that come from?

[Brian Peacock]

Here's one. If we take a defined space and empty it of everything, all matter, all particles and radiation etc...

Let me stop you there. How the fuck do you do that? Short answer, you can't. There is no such space and, with our current skill set, there is not going to be one in the foreseeable future. Especially given that we currently don't actually know the complete set of "particles and radiation etc" that we would need to remove.

Which brings me to the second part of your statement

...it still weighs something.

How the fuck do you figure that?

I await enlightenment with visible agogedness.

Take it up with Larry Klauss -- it's pretty much a verbatim quote. I presumed that the maths figured out ok but perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to take particle and quantum physicists too literally.

Do you have a reference? I'd love to see which context you removed that from!

From a c.30 min interview on youtube for Canadian public TV about his book. Away from PC at the mo but iirc the interviewer is wearing beige.

About 3:30. "You take a region space, get rid of all the particles, and all the radiation, and so there's nothing there.. that empty space weighs something, and we don't understand why."

Both in beige.

[Jason]

Oh. That's the footstep of Dark Matter/Energy.

[Blind groper]

In terms of maths, getting something from nothing is easy. The simplest such equation is :

0 = 1-1

There are an infinite number of such equations, like 0 = 1+2-3 and so on.

IF you take 0 = 1-1, and you then put the +1 in one box, and the -1 in a second box, you have two somethings from nothing.

In terms of physics, it is not too difficult, either. You just assume that everything has its opposite sign partner. Every particle has an antiparticle. A photon has an antiphoton. etc.

Of course, you need to put the particles in one place and the antiparticles elsewhere, so they will not annihilate each other. If the multiverse concept is correct, then maybe we have our universe, and another universe of opposite sign material. As long as they never contact each other, no problem.

It may well be that the entire universe (or multiverse) has an exactly equal number of plus sign things, and minus sign things, meaning that the net sum of everything is nothing.

[Jason]

Subatomics have their negative mirror as well. Quark to Antiquark etc..

[JimC]

Deep down in "empty" space, at the level of quantum foam around the Planck length, the Universe is thought to be seething with virtual particles, flashing in an out of existence at bewildering speed, as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle swaps uncertainties about time with uncertainties about energy (the corollary with the usual trade-off between position and momentum)...

[Forty Two]

A question that people have sweated over for centuries.

I can now give the answer.

It's not "rather than" at all.

Actually, there is something AND nothing. Because there is nothing. Plenty of it. An awful lot more of nothing, than there is of something. And funnily enough, if you got rid of all of the something, there wouldn't be any more nothing.

By naming nothing "nothing" we imbue it with the characteristics of a thing. When we say "something rather than nothing" we are creating a picture of choices between things.

Nothing is not a thing. There is no such thing as nothing. Therefore it is not a choice between something and nothing. The only choice is between something and something else. Nothing never enters into it, because nothing isn't something that can "be." It's not a state of affairs that can exist. Nothing doesn't exist. Nothing can't "be."

So, the reason that there is something rather than nothing is that nothing doesn't, and by definition can't, exist or be. There will always be something, because only things can be. Only things can exist. Nothings cannot.

[Forty Two]

But you can't get something for nothing. Or they are all lying.

But, you can get some things from other things.

[Forty Two]

In the infinite multiverse, there are an infinite number of universes where there is no "something".

That's nonsensical. If there is a universe there is something -- whatever the universe is made of. If a universe really contained nothing at all, then it wouldn't be a universe. So, there can't be an infinite number of universes that aren't universes.

[Forty Two]

Nothing is unstable unless Victor Stenger is lying to me.

Nothing can't be unstable. If X "is" anything, then it is by definition not "nothing." Conceptually, "is" only applies to things that exist. Nonexistence can't have any qualities, and therefore to say that it "is" something is to call it an "it" and give it a quality. Then it's not a nothing. it's a something. Nonexistence isn't. That's all that can be said about nonexistence or nothing. They just "aren't."

[Forty Two]

Nothing is an abstract mathematical/logical concept of thought,

That's your theory. but just like the complete opposite, it can't be proved.

Anyway, if that's the case, why is there something? Did it come from an abstract mathematical/logical concept, and where did that come from?

First we it would have to "come from" somewhere. This is something that may not be the case -- something my not have "come from" anywhere. Matter and energy is neither created or destroyed, but only changed in form. So, the universe that we see today "came from" the fluid process of change in which the universe moves and changes day by day, like a flowing river. Where does the river come from? Up the hill? Where does it it come from before that? Snow and rain, etc. Where does it come from before that? Evaporation and precipitation. And, so on and so on... what about before that? Molecular bonding of different molecules over millions of years combining and separating, comet impacts, accretion, etc. Where did it come from before that? expanding universe. The river is still there. It's pieces are just strewn all over, and are moving about. What about before that? Some other form of existence. It's just a giant flowing changing process where all the things move around to combine and separate and form other arrangements temporarily. They don't "come from" anywhere -- it's just a process that goes on with the things that exist.

[Forty Two]

About 3:30. "You take a region space, get rid of all the particles, and all the radiation, and so there's nothing there.. that empty space weighs something, and we don't understand why."

Both in beige.

Empty space isn't nothing. It's something. It's just something we don't yet understand. If it were nothing, we'd not be able to observe it. It wouldn't be "empty space" because it wouldn't "be" anything at all.