how did universe come to be?

[fundie]

I have read that there are three possibilities for explaining the existence of the universe. Either it has always been, or it popped into existence from absolutely nothing, or it is the creation of some sort of nonphysical living entity. Which seems most likely to you, and why? Or do you think there is another possibility? If you think universe might have arisen by a physical process from some meta-universe then consider the question for the meta-universe. Some say that time began with the big bang, so there is no point in asking what caused the big bang, but causation does not require time.
I think both the it always existed and it came from nothing possibilities are fatally flawed, but I will wait for responses before making that argument.

[Luis Garcia]

Either it has always been, or it popped into existence from absolutely nothing, or it is the creation of some sort of nonphysical living entity.

What did the nonphysical entity make it from?

[trendkill]

The first and/or the second, depending on how you look at it--if time began at some point, then all time would still include everything which existed from that point to the end (if any) of time. But the third seems superfluous, even whimsical (why should it be a living entity?).

Some say that time began with the big bang, so there is no point in asking what caused the big bang,Actually, it's more that there is no point in asking what came before the Big Bang. Not quite the same thing.
but causation does not require time.Possibly true, but our ideas about causation are intimately connected to our perception of time. Atemporal causation might even be seen as a distinct concept from causation as we know it, it seems to me. For instance, if the entire universe is somehow caused atemporally, then why single out the Big Bang as the result of that causation? The obvious reason would be that one is still thinking of causation in temporal terms and sees God as having existed "before" the Big Bang, which of course makes no sense if God is atemporal.

In any case, the fact that something is conceivable doesn't mean we need to postulate it.

[Gooch's dad]

How did the universe come to be? I don't know, but "God did it" is never a scientific explanation, anymore than "I turned on the light switch" is an explanation for how incandescent lights are powered by electricity.

[Dreadnought]

I have read that there are three possibilities for explaining the existence of the universe. Either it has always been, or it popped into existence from absolutely nothing, or it is the creation of some sort of nonphysical living entity. Which seems most likely to you, and why? Or do you think there is another possibility? If you think universe might have arisen by a physical process from some meta-universe then consider the question for the meta-universe. Some say that time began with the big bang, so there is no point in asking what caused the big bang, but causation does not require time.
I think both the it always existed and it came from nothing possibilities are fatally flawed, but I will wait for responses before making that argument.There are several other possibilities even with these broad categories. Any particular reason why the entity must be non-physical? What does non-physical even mean? Why does it have to be just one entity (to the extent that you can count non-physical entities)?

Looking forwarded to you pointing out the "flaws" in the always existed option. If you do then please demonstrate how these "flaws" don't also pertain to your deity.

[nygreenguy]

I think that the matter and energy have always been, but not the universe. Our universe is unique to our last big bang event.

Im one of those big bang/big crunch people.

I simply find no reason and no evidence to believe it was anything other THAN natural.

I think to claim a creator is a generally flawed idea. Heres why.

Often times the creationists claims "well, what made the stuff" and they somehow think that their diety of choice escapes that same question.

And they somehow think they can claim "Diety X has always been here" but laugh when we make that claim about the universe. And if we were to apply the O-razor, we must say that its au-natural.

So those are my basic beliefs in a nutshell fundie. Im interested to hear what you think! (oh and welcome aboard :wave: )

[fundie]

What did the nonphysical entity make it from? - From nothing, creation ex nihilo.
Why should it be a living entity? - Because a sentient being as Creator represents a distinct possibility. If the cause of the universe coming into existence were something nonliving, a physical process, then we are dealing with a meta-universe and we have to ask where that came from. We either have an infinite regress, which is like a universe without a beginning, or at some point a meta-universe just came into existence without a cause, or the other distinct possibility is a Creator.
Trendkill - When I mentioned the possibility of the universe 'always existing', I meant a universe with an infinite past. You are right that if time had a beginning then in a sense the universe always existed, but it also has a first moment.
Trendkill are you saying that you think that the universe coming into existence from nothing, without a cause is a viable possibility? I suppose that if the universe really did come into existence that way then people would always suspect that there is some other explanation. How could we ever know it was causeless?
Gooch's dad - If God created the universe then what sort of 'scientific' explanation would satisfy you?
Dreadnought - Good questions. My terminology is awkward. I called it a non-physical entity to emphasize that it is different from a physical cause. The more standard term is to call it a spirit. I haven't thought about why there should only be one such being as opposed to many. But your last question, what is wrong with the universe always having existed, and why do these same problems not apply to a Creator, that has been worked out in great detail. I will reply to that soon. It is an important issue, since many atheists think that if there is a reason that the universe could not have existed forever then that reason must apply to God, and similarly if God could have existed forever then why not the universe.

[Luis Garcia]

What did the nonphysical entity make it from? - From nothing, creation ex nihilo.


Then you have so far only presented two possibilities. What's your third one?

[nygreenguy]

What did the nonphysical entity make it from? - From nothing, creation ex nihilo. So a being violates the laws of the universe it creates? Interesting....
Why should it be a living entity? - Because a sentient being as Creator represents a distinct possibility. Under what evidence is it a direct possibility. There isnt even a hint of empirical evidence of a creator. Logically, there is also no reason to think there was a creator.

What makes your creator any more valid than one i simply make up in my head?


If the cause of the universe coming into existence were something nonliving, a physical process, then we are dealing with a meta-universe and we have to ask where that came from. Why must this be a "meta-universe"?

Heck, what IS a meta-universe?


We either have an infinite regress, which is like a universe without a beginning, or at some point a meta-universe just came into existence without a cause, or the other distinct possibility is a Creator. once again, why is a creator even a possibility? It seems to be a non-sequitur.

However, I consider the term universe to mean more the space than the matter/energy. In recognizing this, the universe has NOT always existed, but the matter has. When we were nothing more than a singularity, there was no real "space" so there was no real universe until it began expanding. But I see no reason why we must be constrained to your options.


Gooch's dad - If God created the universe then what sort of 'scientific' explanation would satisfy you? Not to speak for Gooch, but any shred of evidence would be nice.


Dreadnought - Good questions. My terminology is awkward. I called it a non-physical entity to emphasize that it is different from a physical cause. The more standard term is to call it a spirit. I haven't thought about why there should only be one such being as opposed to many. But your last question, what is wrong with the universe always having existed, If the universe was timesless, it would be black. There isnt infinite energy to support an infinity old universe. And since we have an expanding universe and we can even hear the big bang, its logical to conclude a beginning.



and why do these same problems not apply to a Creator, that has been worked out in great detail. I will reply to that soon. It is an important issue, since many atheists think that if there is a reason that the universe could not have existed forever then that reason must apply to God, and similarly if God could have existed forever then why not the universe.

This im waiting for! Please hurry! :p

[trendkill]

Why should it be a living entity? - Because a sentient being as Creator represents a distinct possibility. If the cause of the universe coming into existence were something nonliving, a physical process, then we are dealing with a meta-universe and we have to ask where that came from. We either have an infinite regress, which is like a universe without a beginning, or at some point a meta-universe just came into existence without a cause, or the other distinct possibility is a Creator.I think I see a hidden premise--the idea that nonliving things can't constitute proper explanations. Without that assumption, the claim that "if the cause of the universe is living, we must look no further, but if it's not living, we can just ask 'what caused that' and so on into infinity" makes no sense.

Maybe this premise about living things comes from the idea that we need a necessary being to be the first cause, and that being has to be the sort that has thoughts and intentions, etc. which in turn would come from the whole theistic tradition of ontological proofs and so forth which atheists such as myself do not recognize as valid.

Trendkill are you saying that you think that the universe coming into existence from nothing, without a cause is a viable possibility?Absolutely. In fact, you could look at it this way--if we take the universe as being everything that exists rather than just spacetime and the matter and energy within it, then not only is the universe coming from nothing uncaused a viable possibility, it's a logical certainty. Because even if a God created the cosmos, then the cosmos isn't the universe; the universe would consist of God + the cosmos. And if God and the cosmos together are all that exists, then the universe as a whole still doesn't have a cause (since the cosmos is caused by God, and God is caused by nothing, so the chain of causes comes to an end just the same).

I've seen Theists try to get around this by consider God a self-caused being; on the other hand, atheists tend not to be keen on the idea of self-causation. I personally don't think it makes any sense to say something is self-caused--unless maybe you're talking about a temporal loop in which A causes B and B reaches back in time and causes A, but "A causes A to exist" seems to me to be indistinguishable from "A simply exists".

I suppose that if the universe really did come into existence that way then people would always suspect that there is some other explanation. How could we ever know it was causeless?True, but I expect we'd have that problem no matter what--see my answer to whether the universe coming from nothing without a cause is a viable possibility, above.

[nygreenguy]

Absolutely. In fact, you could look at it this way--if we take the universe as being everything that exists rather than just spacetime and the matter and energy within it, then not only is the universe coming from nothing uncaused a viable possibility, it's a logical certainty. But I think this violates the laws of physics. While spacetime has a beginning, the matter/energy can not.

[trendkill]

But I think this violates the laws of physics. While spacetime has a beginning, the matter/energy can not.
I've never heard that. It would seem that if spacetime has a beginning, then that would be the beginning of everything else also (clearly matter cannot have existed before spacetime, because nothing can exist before time, so it either began after or concurrently with time's beginning).

But anyway, that doesn't seem to have any relevance to the statement you quoted, which is perfectly compatible with matter not having a beginning.

[VoxRat]

I have read that there are three possibilities for explaining the existence of the universe. Either it has always been, or it popped into existence from absolutely nothing, or it is the creation of some sort of nonphysical living entity. fundie here seems to be trying to create the illusion of a logical argument - as if A or B or C is an exhaustive list of mutually exclusive possibilities.

But what's this "some sort of nonphysical living entity"?

First of all, "living" and "nonphysical" are contradictory. "Living" - by any standard definition of the word - requires a physical existence.

Here fundie tries to justify this "logical" requirement for a living creator:Why should it be a living entity? - Because a sentient being as Creator represents a distinct possibility. "It has to be, because it's a possibility"?

Not only does that make no sense, I don't see how a "sentient being" creating the universe even is a "possibility".

If the cause of the universe coming into existence were something nonliving, a physical process, then we are dealing with a meta-universe and we have to ask where that came fromSo?
That hardly means it can't be the case.

It may be that our universe - i.e. everything that we can even theoretically know anything about - is a subset of a larger set, maybe even an infinite set, of things we can't know anything about. I.e. it might be physically impossible for any information to cross the time-space boundary known as the Big Bang, much as light (and, by extension information) can't escape a black hole.

[Jobar]

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/217.gif

[nygreenguy]

I've never heard that. Youve never heard of the First law of thermodynamics? :p


It would seem that if spacetime has a beginning, then that would be the beginning of everything else also (clearly matter cannot have existed before spacetime, because nothing can exist before time, so it either began after or concurrently with time's beginning). Why cant anything exist before time? spacetime is simply the fabric of space, if the big bang singularity is of infinite density, then there doesnt seem to be spacetime, meaning no time. When the big bang happens, then we create time.

I think this is how it works. :dunno:

But anyway, that doesn't seem to have any relevance to the statement you quoted, which is perfectly compatible with matter not having a beginning.

hhmm..i think i disagree. ill explain below.

if we take the universe as being everything that exists rather than just spacetime and the matter and energy within it, then not only is the universe coming from nothing uncaused a viable possibility, it's a logical certainty.

If you exclude matter and energy Id agree. But since you did include it, thats why i raised my question.

I hope this sort of cleared it up. I could, of course, simply be not properly understand your point! :(

[nygreenguy]

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/217.gif

I LOVE that!

THAT needs to be on a t-shirt!

[trendkill]

Youve never heard of the First law of thermodynamics? :pYou mean the one that states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant? That doesn't say anything about the creation or destruction of isolated systems themselves. :P


Why cant anything exist before time?Because the word "before" is a temporal description that assumes some amount of time has already passed? Where there is no time, there is no "before".

[VoxRat]

You mean the one that states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant? That doesn't say anything about the creation or destruction of isolated systems themselves. :P


Because the word "before" is a temporal description that assumes some amount of time has already passed? Where there is no time, there is no "before".
yes, but we all know now that "time" depends on the observer. So there could be a "before" the Big Bang for an observer outside it.

[Alethias]

What is the fatal flaw in believing the universe always existed?

Have you heard of Mass-energy Equivalence? Here's something from the wikipedia page on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence):The total amount of mass/energy in a closed system (as seen by a single observer) remains constant because energy cannot be created or destroyed and, in all of its forms, trapped energy exhibits massif Mass/Energy can't be created or destroyed, I think that implies that it's always existed. :)

I see no evidence for any creator, but there is reasonable support for the notion that matter/energy has always existed.

Saying there is a creator begs the question of how was the creator created, so you have a regress problem. But if there is no creator but the universe has always existed, there is no regress problem. So the fatal flaw is in the idea that there is a creator, not the idea that there is no creator.

"how did the universe come to be?" carries the implication that at some time it didn't exist. You can't assume that.

[Ray Moscow]

I have read that there are three possibilities for explaining the existence of the universe. Either it has always been, or it popped into existence from absolutely nothing, or it is the creation of some sort of nonphysical living entity. Which seems most likely to you, and why? Or do you think there is another possibility? If you think universe might have arisen by a physical process from some meta-universe then consider the question for the meta-universe. Some say that time began with the big bang, so there is no point in asking what caused the big bang, but causation does not require time.
I think both the it always existed and it came from nothing possibilities are fatally flawed, but I will wait for responses before making that argument.

There are other possibilities, too, such as:

1. It has always existed, but perhaps in other forms. (For example, "before" the big bang maybe there was a big crunch of the same universe in another form.)

2. It came into being as an interaction between other universes, for example from a collision between two branes (a feature of string theory)

3. It was spawned from another universe -- perhaps through the formation of a singularity or else something not yet understood.

4. It was created by physical living entities in another universe, perhaps in an experiment.

5. We are only consciousness -- brains in a jar -- and the "universe" isn't real anyway.

6. Someone created a being who thinks he is "God" who thinks he created everything but of course didn't. This is sort of a gnostic joke.

Anyway, as someone already said positing a "creator" who made the universe doesn't get to any ulitmate origin, because this merely defers the question to the "creator's" origin (besides lacking any evidence whatsoever to back it).

[nygreenguy]

You mean the one that states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant? That doesn't say anything about the creation or destruction of isolated systems themselves. :P But I think the addition, or removal of anything would simply not be mathematically possible.

Also, nothing can destroy or create the isolated system because the isolated system is everything.

Now my heads spinning.

Thanks. :D

[Gooch's dad]

Not to speak for Gooch, but any shred of evidence would be nice.

That pretty much covers it. Science doesn't deal in trying to come up with explanations that aren't scientific, that was my point. It deals with evidence, and tries to come up with hypotheses or theories that best explain the evidence. And as I already pointed out, "God did it" simply doesn't qualify as a scientific explanation.

There are plenty of hypotheses that fit the first two categories you proposed. For the first category, "the universe has always existed", the ekpyrotic theory involving collisions of "branes" is one such explanation.

For the 2nd category, the inflationary hypothesis of the Big Bang does propose that the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation in some kind of earlier universe. I do have a background in physics, but not at the level necessary to really understand either ekpyrotic theory or M-theory, and I'm fairly sure that nobody at this board understands it either.

A physicist friend who has studied this a bit, but is no expert, told me something interesting, that unless you really have a good handle on the math involved, you can't talk intelligently about the subject at all. It's like trying to talk about global navigation while still thinking in terms of only basic arithmetic. You just can't even begin to deal with the concepts involved.

[nygreenguy]

There are plenty of hypotheses that fit the first two categories you proposed. For the first category, "the universe has always existed", the ekpyrotic theory involving collisions of "branes" is one such explanation.

For the 2nd category, the inflationary hypothesis of the Big Bang does propose that the universe arose from a quantum fluctuation in some kind of earlier universe. I do have a background in physics, but not at the level necessary to really understand either ekpyrotic theory or M-theory, and I'm fairly sure that nobody at this board understands it either. I thought all of these were pretty must disregarded as improbable. Isnt this all sting theory stuff?

[Gooch's dad]

Improbable? They're all just hypotheses that attempt to explain the observed expansion of the universe, so I don't know how any such hypothesis could be termed "improbable".

And neither is really tied to string theory at all. The standard inflationary cosmology I mentioned has been around since 1981 or earlier, and attempts have been made to "fit" it to some versions of string theory, but they are independent ideas.

[Christina]

Would anyone object if I split the physics discussion off to S&S? It's an interesting discussion of it's own.

[Gooch's dad]

Well, it really is related to what fundie asked in his OP. Split it if you want, but he may end up claiming that he never saw answers to his questions.

[Christina]

I'll leave it alone for now - thanks : )

[nygreenguy]

Improbable? They're all just hypotheses that attempt to explain the observed expansion of the universe, so I don't know how any such hypothesis could be termed "improbable".

And neither is really tied to string theory at all. The standard inflationary cosmology I mentioned has been around since 1981 or earlier, and attempts have been made to "fit" it to some versions of string theory, but they are independent ideas.


I sat for a while thinking about the right word to say, improbable wasnt the right one.

BS was my first thought, then junk science.

But i remember hearing about these in the flick "elegant universe".

I also recall many people saying that these hypothesis are simply fantasy.

[Jobar]

I LOVE that!

THAT needs to be on a t-shirt!

My favorite .gif. I've been posting it for years, in response to the cosmological argument, and as a good short explanation of Occam's Razor, too! :)

As best as I can find out, we owe that one to Winace. It can be found at the FSTDT website; I've been asking around for the artist for years, and if anyone knows anything else about it, I'd appreciate being told.

If they ever come up with a way to put a moving image on a t-shirt, I will definitely get one for myself!

[David B]

Would anyone object if I split the physics discussion off to S&S? It's an interesting discussion of it's own.

Moving the whole thread to S&S is also an option.

David B

[Jobar]

I wouldn't move it, David. It's a pretty standard variation on the cosmological argument, and that implies some discussion of science. Some of the old EoG discussions got quite technical.

(What I often had trouble with there was when some YEC would start talking about E vs. C. Theophilus and Tim Muse come to mind...)

[trendkill]

yes, but we all know now that "time" depends on the observer. So there could be a "before" the Big Bang for an observer outside it.There couldn't be one from our perspective, though, or from that of an atemporal God.

But I think the addition, or removal of anything would simply not be mathematically possible.It's not a matter of math, it's a matter of physics. And this is a discussion about metaphysics, which means the laws of physics can't be taken as absolute.

Also, nothing can destroy or create the isolated system because the isolated system is everything.Begs the question of God's existence, and also precludes VoxRat's "outside observer" scenario.

[nygreenguy]

It's not a matter of math, it's a matter of physics. I was unaware the two could be separated. Aren't many physics "laws" and "theories" defined mathematically?


And this is a discussion about metaphysics, which means the laws of physics can't be taken as absolute.
Since when? Especially since there is no reason to believe anything than a natural beginning, why shouldnt the natural laws be allowed to be applied?

What makes this anymore a "metaphysics" question than a simple scientific one?

Seems like an easy way out of having to know how this shit works.

[trendkill]

I was unaware the two could be separated. Aren't many physics "laws" and "theories" defined mathematically?The point is that they aren't derivable from mathematics. WRT math, and logic, the laws of physics are essentially arbitrary. Another way of expressing this is to say that what is logically possible may not be physically possible.

Since when?Since we moved the scope of discussion out of the boundaries of our physical universe, and started considering such ideas as God and outside observers.

Especially since there is no reason to believe anything than a natural beginning, why shouldnt the natural laws be allowed to be applied?The question is, what natural laws are in place when we are talking about the potential causes of nature? Claiming that our natural laws hold outside of nature is simply unwarranted.

What makes this anymore a "metaphysics" question than a simple scientific one?The fact that the things we're talking about are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry thus far.

Seems like an easy way out of having to know how this shit works.It's just paying attention to the scope of the validity of scientific conclusions, and noting that we're talking about stuff that's beyond them. If anything, it seems to me that you're trying to take the easy way out by claiming that what we've observed is all that is possible for there to be.

[nygreenguy]

The point is that they aren't derivable from mathematics. WRT math, and logic, the laws of physics are essentially arbitrary. Another way of expressing this is to say that what is logically possible may not be physically possible. I honestly dont get what your saying. (and i dont know what WRT means [with regard to?])

Since we moved the scope of discussion out of the boundaries of our physical universe, and started considering such ideas as God and outside observers. Ive never moved it beyond. I think "beyond" is a fantasy.

The question is, what natural laws are in place when we are talking about the potential causes of nature? Claiming that our natural laws hold outside of nature is simply unwarranted. I still dont get it. I never really claimed (or meant to claim) there is anything outside of the natural.

The fact that the things we're talking about are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry thus far. Not mw!

It's just paying attention to the scope of the validity of scientific conclusions, and noting that we're talking about stuff that's beyond them. If anything, it seems to me that you're trying to take the easy way out by claiming that what we've observed is all that is possible for there to be.

I simply dont believe there is anything beyond them (scientific conclusions) and ive never claimed all we've observed is all thats possible.

[trendkill]

I honestly dont get what your saying. (and i dont know what WRT means [with regard to?])Yeah, "with regard to" or "with respect to". I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. You said math and physics are inseparable, and that I can't talk about the laws of logic or mathematics separate from the laws of physics. If this were the case, then physics would just be part of mathematics, and we'd be able to derive the laws of physics starting from mathematical assumptions--but we can't. For example, the speed of light is about 1 foot per nanosecond. There's no way you can derive this fact from mathematics; you have to actually observe the movement of light in order to come up with it.


Ive never moved it beyond. I think "beyond" is a fantasy.So do I, I suppose, but if you're not even willing to come up with a reason why it's a fantasy, you're in the wrong thread.

[Preno]

You said math and physics are inseparable, and that I can't talk about the laws of logic or mathematics separate from the laws of physics. If this were the case, then physics would just be part of mathematics, and we'd be able to derive the laws of physics starting from mathematical assumptions--but we can't.Or vice versa, mathematics could be, to put it imprecisely, a "part" of physics. Up to this point, I agree with you, but it's certainly possible to view mathematics as inseparable from the whole enterprise of empirical science. Quine does, for example, and, unless I'm mistaken, Putnam.

[trendkill]

Well, of course, but the whole "togetherness" and "apartness" thing is just a metaphor because science and physics aren't physical objects. The point is that even though you can't have physics without math, you can have math without physics.

[Preno]

Well, of course, but the whole "togetherness" and "apartness" thing is just a metaphor because science and physics aren't physical objects. The point is that even though you can't have physics without math, you can have math without physics.Yes, of course, that's why I said I agreed with the rest of what you said.

[nygreenguy]

So do I, I suppose, but if you're not even willing to come up with a reason why it's a fantasy, you're in the wrong thread.

Well, i dont think so. The burden isnt upon me until some evidence is conjured up that supports the notion that its anything but natural.

Yeah, "with regard to" or "with respect to". I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. You said math and physics are inseparable, and that I can't talk about the laws of logic or mathematics separate from the laws of physics. If this were the case, then physics would just be part of mathematics, and we'd be able to derive the laws of physics starting from mathematical assumptions--but we can't. For example, the speed of light is about 1 foot per nanosecond. There's no way you can derive this fact from mathematics; you have to actually observe the movement of light in order to come up with it.

Im still a bit confused. Let me try one more time, I claimed that its impossible to have something come from nothing, or something to vanish because its mathematically impossible.

Sure, this idea came from simple experiments not using the exact formula, but that doesnt negate the fact the formula is an essential part of it. The law in its qualitative form simply does us no good. The theory of relativity is nothing without its corresponding formula.

Also, Im quite sure many physics laws could be derived from mathematical assumptions. With regard to the speed of light we could use the e=mc^2 as long as we know the e and the m we could derive the speed of light (even if it is a constant)

[trendkill]

Well, i dont think so. The burden isnt upon me until some evidence is conjured up that supports the notion that its anything but natural. The burden is on you the second you make a claim and expect anyone to give a damn. And if you don't care whether people believe your claim or not, there doesn't seem to be any reason to talk in the first place.

Im still a bit confused. Let me try one more time, I claimed that its impossible to have something come from nothing, or something to vanish because its mathematically impossible.And I said that ain't math. And it isn't.

Sure, this idea came from simple experiments not using the exact formula, but that doesnt negate the fact the formula is an essential part of it. The law in its qualitative form simply does us no good. The theory of relativity is nothing without its corresponding formula.The formula is just a description, is the point. If the reality were different, if energy could be created or destroyed, then the formula would be something else.

Also, Im quite sure many physics laws could be derived from mathematical assumptions. With regard to the speed of light we could use the e=mc^2 as long as we know the e and the m we could derive the speed of light (even if it is a constant)But you can't derive e=mc2 from math. It is a description based on observations. As far as math is concerned, e could be mc3, or m+c, or m * the number of clowns that can fit in a miniature car. Math doesn't care. It's observation that tells us how math applies. At least AFAIK.

[nygreenguy]

The burden is on you the second you make a claim and expect anyone to give a damn. And if you don't care whether people believe your claim or not, there doesn't seem to be any reason to talk in the first place. I never made a claim, other than the universe is natural. And since im sure we both agree here, Im unsure why I would need to provide evidence.

You entered the "metaphysics" stuff, not me.

And I said that ain't math. And it isn't. Well, then we disagree. If only we had a resident physicist to straighten this out.

The formula is just a description, is the point. If the reality were different, if energy could be created or destroyed, then the formula would be something else. Ok, but the reality isnt different. This is what it is. And because this is what it is, it says matter cant be destroyed or created.

But you can't derive e=mc2 from math. It is a description based on observations. As far as math is concerned, e could be mc3, or m+c, or m * the number of clowns that can fit in a miniature car. Math doesn't care. It's observation that tells us how math applies. At least AFAIK. I always though pretty much everything in string theory was derived from math.

I also though many great physics discoveries came from math.

Like I said, I wish we had a physicist here to help sort us out. I sort of dont think we really disagree we are just not good at putting our points out there.

[Christina]

Are you guys sure that you don't want this split off to S&S where the physicists are?

[nygreenguy]

Are you guys sure that you don't want this split off to S&S where the physicists are?

I do sort of agree with what everyone else said, however the op has never came back. (go figure).

Tell them physicists to come here. Dont they check in here?

[Luis Garcia]

Are you guys sure that you don't want this split off to S&S where the physicists are?

Err on the side of doing too little in your job. If you must do something, encourage any physicists you spot to come to this thread.

[Christina]

I thought that you were hinting for me to split it but I'm fine with it here. I don't know who's a physicist and who isn't so you'll have to invite your own : )

[Luis Garcia]

I thought that you were hinting for me to split it but I'm fine with it here. I don't know who's a physicist and who isn't so you'll have to invite your own : )

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll be really really explicit if I think things should be split or moved, and I would suggest encouraging such an environment would be a good idea.

[Linus]

But you can't derive e=mc2 from math. It is a description based on observations. As far as math is concerned, e could be mc3, or m+c, or m * the number of clowns that can fit in a miniature car. Math doesn't care. It's observation that tells us how math applies. At least AFAIK.
That is not quite correct. Self-consistency imposes constraints on mathematical models, especially models in which many things interact and are coupled. In the given example, simple dimensional analysis tells us that it could hardly be e.g. E = m c^3 since the left and right hand side are measured in different units.

That E = m c^2 is not an a priori truth that could have been deduced without observations, but it does follow mathematically from the postulates of relativity theory.

Edited to add: I agree, however, that physics and mathematics are not the same.

[Linus]

Let me try one more time, I claimed that its impossible to have something come from nothing, or something to vanish because its mathematically impossible.
This depends entirely on how you formalize the notion of 'something coming from nothing' and it only makes sense to say that it is mathematically impossible within specific mathematical models. Which mathematical model did you have in mind?

[Linus]

I always though pretty much everything in string theory was derived from math.
String theory is developed with several criteria in mind:

(i) It should fit known empirical facts.
(ii) It should unify the physics of gravitation with the physics of elementary particles.
(iii) It should contain relativity theory and particle physics as a limiting cases, just as relativity contains Newtonian physics as the limit where velocities are small and gravitation is weak. (This is related to point (i) and (ii).)

The method string theorists use to try to find a theory that fulfills these wishes is to express what they consider known and what they are willing to assume in mathematical form and explore the mathematical consequences of these assumptions.
I also though many great physics discoveries came from math.
Yes, this is true. Many discoveries have been surprising consequences of assumptions (expressed in mathematical form) that were made for entirely different reasons. For example, Dirac wanted to formulate a relativistic version of quantum mechanics and out of the mathematical model formulated for this purpose came the consequence that there are electrons have anti-particles, positrons. This was not anticipated by Dirac, who in fact initially interpreted the anti-particles incorrectly. This of course does not mean that the great discoveries are a priori truths that can be deduced without relying on any empirical assumptions.

[Zebulon]

or it popped into existence from absolutely nothing ... I think both the it always existed and it came from nothing possibilities are fatally flawed

Why do you think "it came from nothing" is fatally flawed? Subatomic particles blink in and out of existence all the time. Google "vacuum energy" or "quantum vacuum fluctuations".

[Autodidact]

Possibility #4:
It is not possible for human beings to figure out the answer to this question.

[fundie]

Thanks for all the responses and Sorry for the terribly long delay in replying. I have been thinking about the posts, but there are too many to respond to everything. A few thoughts and clarifications:
1. By the universe, I meant something like everything that is theoretically observable, or that we can communicate with. Also sometimes called the cosmos. So a meta-universe would be a system with its own physics that caused our universe to come into existence, like in brane models.
2. I think it makes sense to say that absolute nothingness can not (logically) be the cause of anything. Virtual particles coming into existence is not from nothing, they are a product of the vacuum state. Real nothing, no spacetime, no anything, does not exist in any sense, nor can it cause anything. So the 'possibility' that universe popped into existence from nothing should be interpretted as it came into existence without any cause.
3. What I would most like to discuus is the argument that the universe could not have existed forever, but that God could. It is not my argument at all, and I will present it in another post.

[nygreenguy]

Thanks for all the responses and Sorry for the terribly long delay in replying. I have been thinking about the posts, but there are too many to respond to everything. I was beginning to think you disappeared! Its good to see you back! :wave:
1. By the universe, I meant something like everything that is theoretically observable, or that we can communicate with. Also sometimes called the cosmos. So a meta-universe would be a system with its own physics that caused our universe to come into existence, like in brane models. Well, "theoretically" isn't anything/everything possible that isn't a logical contradiction?
2. I think it makes sense to say that absolute nothingness can not (logically) be the cause of anything. Virtual particles coming into existence is not from nothing, they are a product of the vacuum state. Real nothing, no spacetime, no anything, does not exist in any sense, nor can it cause anything. So the 'possibility' that universe popped into existence from nothing should be interpretted as it came into existence without any cause.

Hey, we agree! I also agree the universe did not come out of nothing. I still say it violates the laws of physics!

But what if I was to say it always existed, do you take issue with that?

<obviously, by the statement below> :D



3. What I would most like to discuus is the argument that the universe could not have existed forever, but that God could. It is not my argument at all, and I will present it in another post.

Im confused, you said you would like to discuss it, but its not your argument. Does that mean its someone else's statement/idea that you agree with?
I would really like to see how you can justify this apparent contradiction!