NoCause

[_Dantana]

Why is there something, rather than nothing? I haven't read the book, just borrowing the title. The debate always seems to come down to 'first cause'. The materialist says it all started at the big bang. The theist says God did it. The materialist then asks, well, where did the god come from? The theist answers, god exists outside of time.

My question to that is, how can an intelligent entity exist outside of time? It wouldn't be able to do anything. As soon as there is an event, a happening, a thought... there is now a timeline. A before event and after event... time. So, it must be something other.

The materialist says matter came into existence spontaneously. Science has observed particles showing up unannounced in a vacuum. My question to that is, isn't it possible that the particles are showing up from some currently immeasurable elsewhere?

It does seem pretty clear though, the machine is the man. Poke the brain here, a toe twitches, prod it there, religious experience. But, that is only one piece of the puzzle.

DrW, I have to agree with Zerinus on this one. It just seems naturally illogical that a thing can come into existence from non-existence. I mean, science is bound by laws, rules, cause and effect, and science can provide no explanation for existence. So, it must be something other.

The only feeble little theory I have is, Existence, at it's core is not cause and effect based.

Curt

[_DoubtingThomas]

DrW, I have to agree with Zerinus on this one. It just seems naturally illogical that a thing can come into existence from non-existence.

"I can't think of an intuitive way to describe the QM vacuum because all the obvious analogies have "something" instead of nothing "nothing", so I'll do my best but you may still find the idea hard to grasp. That's not just you - everybody finds it hard to grasp.

Start with the classical description of an electric field (Maxwell's equations). It's not too hard to image an electric field as a field filling space. You can even feel the field: for example if you put your hand near an old style TV screen you can feel the static electricity. You can imagine turning down the electric field until it disappears completely, in which case you are left with the vacuum i.e. nothing.

Now imagine the same field, but this time we're using the quantum description of the field (Quantum Electrodynamics instead of Maxell's equations). At the classical level the field is approximately the same as the description Maxwell's equations give, but now we have fluctuations in the field due to the energy-time uncertainty principle. Just as before, imagine turning down the electric field until it disappears. Unlike the classical description, the (average) electric field may disappear but the fluctuations do not. This means the quantum vacuum is different from the classical vacuum because it contains the fluctuations even after you've turned the field down to zero.

The key point is that when I say "turn the field down" I mean reduce the energy to the lowest it will go i.e. you can't make the energy of the electric field any lower. By definition this is what we call the "vacuum" even though it isn't empty (i.e. it contains the fluctuations). It isn't possible to make the vacuum any emptier because the fluctuations are always present and you can't remove them."

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... um-physics

[_Dantana]

"I can't think of an intuitive way to describe the QM vacuum because all the obvious analogies have "something" instead of nothing "nothing", so I'll do my best but you may still find the idea hard to grasp. That's not just you - everybody finds it hard to grasp.

Start with the classical description of an electric field (Maxwell's equations). It's not too hard to image an electric field as a field filling space. You can even feel the field: for example if you put your hand near an old style TV screen you can feel the static electricity. You can imagine turning down the electric field until it disappears completely, in which case you are left with the vacuum i.e. nothing.

Now imagine the same field, but this time we're using the quantum description of the field (Quantum Electrodynamics instead of Maxell's equations). At the classical level the field is approximately the same as the description Maxwell's equations give, but now we have fluctuations in the field due to the energy-time uncertainty principle. Just as before, imagine turning down the electric field until it disappears. Unlike the classical description, the (average) electric field may disappear but the fluctuations do not. This means the quantum vacuum is different from the classical vacuum because it contains the fluctuations even after you've turned the field down to zero.

The key point is that when I say "turn the field down" I mean reduce the energy to the lowest it will go i.e. you can't make the energy of the electric field any lower. By definition this is what we call the "vacuum" even though it isn't empty (i.e. it contains the fluctuations). It isn't possible to make the vacuum any emptier because the fluctuations are always present and you can't remove them."

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... um-physics

That's why I like this board, lots of bright people on here!

DT, My understanding of QM comes almost entirely from a book I read 20 years ago, "Holographic Universe". In there he talks about electrons 'jumping shells' when the atom is excited. Explaining that the electron doesn't move gradually from one orbit to another, but jumps. During the jump the electron is not in observable existence until it shows up again. Is this still, or was it ever accepted phenomenon with the scientific community?

[_Dr. Shades]

"QM" = "Quantum Mechanics?"

[_Gray Ghost]

Why is there something, rather than nothing? I haven't read the book, just borrowing the title. The debate always seems to come down to 'first cause'. The materialist says it all started at the big bang. The theist says God did it. The materialist then asks, well, where did the god come from? The theist answers, god exists outside of time.

My question to that is, how can an intelligent entity exist outside of time? It wouldn't be able to do anything. As soon as there is an event, a happening, a thought... there is now a timeline. A before event and after event... time. So, it must be something other.

The materialist says matter came into existence spontaneously. Science has observed particles showing up unannounced in a vacuum. My question to that is, isn't it possible that the particles are showing up from some currently immeasurable elsewhere?

It does seem pretty clear though, the machine is the man. Poke the brain here, a toe twitches, prod it there, religious experience. But, that is only one piece of the puzzle.

DrW, I have to agree with Zerinus on this one. It just seems naturally illogical that a thing can come into existence from non-existence. I mean, science is bound by laws, rules, cause and effect, and science can provide no explanation for existence. So, it must be something other.

The only feeble little theory I have is, Existence, at it's core is not cause and effect based.

Curt

Nothing, absolute nothing, is an impossibility. If nothing were something it would exist, and would therefore not be nothing. Therefore existence is necessary, not contingent - existence is the true "first cause" posited by classical theists. Therefore pantheists win. :)