Intelligent first cause: WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

Originally posted by byteshertz

The problem I see here is you are trying to relate our realities perception of what is nothing and what is there to alternate realities which may have completely different rules to ours.

I find this hard to explain so I am going to give a little example...

Dreams.. we have all had a dream where it feels so real, you wake up wondering if it was real and take a moment for your brain to recognize this reality. Now if there is a creator that is above our level of reality, in this example he would be the dreamer.
Now in the dream reality to start with there was nothing, then you dream things in to existence, to those outside the dream realm something already existed to start this, but within the dream a whole world is created from nothing.
Now how many levels of dreams we are in nobody knows, and nobody can know because we can only measure what we see within the dream. What we do know is we exist, and therefore we must have came from something, and therefore something must have always existed before everything else because as you point out something can not come from nothing, but my point is, it can be perceived to.

That was some heavy thinking there.

I would have to ask, though, aren't dreams a combination of chemical reactions in the brain? I would think so, but I have no idea. If true, then dreams don't start from nothing.

Originally posted by jiggerj

If there was ever a time of nothingness, there would still be nothing because this state wouldn't have the qualities necessary to move aside to allow the universe to fill it in.

Seeing as the universe exists, it proves that a realm of nothingness has never existed. There had to have always been something. So, that something (quantum particles, waves, or even something before that we don't know about yet) was not created and has always existed.

Thanks for reading.

edit on 5/28/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

An excellent point and well stated.

I was arguing with someone about this 'start' of all things recently to no avail because I couldn't get my throught straight and clear. So I had to pop into this thread to see what people had to say.

I appolise right off for putting in my two cents worth, in language I understand, before reading all the posts.

Thinking on this problem it came down to the idea that 'Stuff' has always been here in one form or another, or in one system or another. The Big Bang of science is just a biurcation point of an already existing system:

Bifurcation:

Bifurcations: A bifurcation is a point at which a system branches or forks into “qualitatively new behavior” (Schueler). This branching at a bifurcation usually occurs suddenly bringing about an abrupt change in behavior as opposed to a gradual evolution of it.


A bifurcation results from perturbations (tiny fluctuations in a system’s parameters), inherent in a complex system, that repeat over time and affect overall system dynamics. Ultimately, this snowball effect begins to move the entire system into a whole new direction in terms of observable behavior. Thus, a bifurcation also marks the radical transformation of a non-linear system resulting in new governing laws of its internal dynamics.


Bifurcations are critical points in the history of any complex system. Such systems can follow two distinct routes: chaos or equilibrium. Systems that undergo a process called period doubling diverge into chaos as a rapid succession of bifurcations brings it towards the phase space basin of a strange attractor (see above). On the other hand, some systems are brought to equilibrium through a stabilization effect of bifurcations coupled with feedback loops.


Some researchers call critical points SDPs, or sensitive decision points. Chaos researchers assert that a system far from an SDP will generally behave in a predictable manner or converge to a fixed set of outcomes while systems approaching an SDP will diverge and become unpredictable.

www.coe.fau.edu...

This also alligns with the religious view (fundamentalists won't like this or anything else but it works for me). Who are we to say how long one of God's Days is.

This is just what you are saying. thanks for the thread.

Originally posted by alfa1

Straw man.
The energy / matter equivalence isnt allowed for here. Your "nothing" makes no reference to the starting energy.

Not at all. The point here is the limited thinking that requires 'a beginning' and 'an end'. That's binary thinking and we are moving beyond that. Science has moved beyond that - think Schrodinger's Cat. Both alive and dead until the wave of probabilities is colapsed by 'observation'.
'

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

I want you to respond to it the way YOU want to respond to it.

This is literally a proven scientific fact. All matter descends into nothingness. It's not just empty space I'm talking about either. It is, in fact, the absence of both space AND time. Nonlocal nothingness.

edit on 29-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)

Are you talking about entropy perhaps? 2nd law of thermodynamics and all that rot?

A simple definition:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.

www.emc.maricopa.edu...

And this assumes a closed system and we have no way of proving or disproving that our universe is a closed system. The 'zero point field' would see to point towards an open system of some type.

Zero-point energy is the energy that remains when all other energy is removed from a system. This behaviour is demonstrated by, for example, liquid helium. As the temperature is lowered to absolute zero, helium remains a liquid, rather than freezing to a solid, owing to the irremovable zero-point energy of its atomic motions. (Increasing the pressure to 25 atmospheres will cause helium to freeze.)

www.calphysics.org...

Originally posted by bbracken677
reply to post by jiggerj

 

The problem with your logic is that by your definition movement in a vacuum would be impossible.

vac·u·um
/ˈvakˌyo͞o(ə)m/
Noun
A space entirely devoid of matter.

I do have an issue with this definition. Does the word 'matter' also include quantum waves and particles? I don't know.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Yeah, An intelligence that has always existed, outside of space and time.

reply to post by dusty1

 

How does anything operate where one minute does not move into the next minute? How can there be a progression of thought without time? It takes 2 seconds to think "I will create the universe." Without time, that thought could not have occurred.

But you can divide a distance in half, over and over, ad infinitum. There is no endpoint.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

No, no, no. lol They've watched particles appear from somewhere.

Where? What somewhere else?
No - the vacuum is pure energy, like the ocean is the source of the waves.


Wrong - the ocean is not the source/cause of waves. The moon is.

You are stuck in cause/effect thinking, alpha/omega thinking, either/or thinking.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

Scientists have taken everything (particles etc.) out and made a vacuum and then watched it very closely with strong magnifying cameras and watched as virtual particles appear out of - nothing.

No, no, no. lol They've watched particles appear from somewhere.

Where? What somewhere else?

Probably from just outside of the vacuum they created, I don't know. We aren't talking magic here. Those particles had to come from somewhere.

Remember your E=MC2. E amount of Energy is equal to an amount of Mass (stuff) times the constant for the speed of light squired. The symmetric Property of Equality states "If if a = b then b = a" and is bidirectional. Energy can be converted to Matter (fission) and Matter to Energy (fusion). Hence, each is fundamentally the same star dust.

reply to post by FyreByrd


I think a great philosopher has something to add to this discussion.

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
Douglas Adams

Originally posted by bbracken677
reply to post by jiggerj

 

The problem with your logic is that by your definition movement in a vacuum would be impossible.

Not if there was something in the vacuum. Think hard on this image.



"Nothing" has no qualities that would allow it to fill in the space that my hand previously occupied. If that 'nothing' DID fill in that space, then it isn't nothing.

reply to post by FyreByrd

Remember your E=MC2. E amount of Energy is equal to an amount of Mass (stuff) times the constant for the speed of light squired. The symmetric Property of Equality states "If if a = b then b = a" and is bidirectional. Energy can be converted to Matter (fission) and Matter to Energy (fusion). Hence, each is fundamentally the same star dust.

This is correct, of course. But, what if 'a' = 0 ?

Nothing isn't a vacuum. A vacuum has space and time. Nothing is non-local, non-dual.

Originally posted by bbracken677
reply to post by jiggerj

 

The problem with your logic is that by your definition movement in a vacuum would be impossible.

But it would be. Movement, per se, is always relative to something else.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

Remember your E=MC2. E amount of Energy is equal to an amount of Mass (stuff) times the constant for the speed of light squired. The symmetric Property of Equality states "If if a = b then b = a" and is bidirectional. Energy can be converted to Matter (fission) and Matter to Energy (fusion). Hence, each is fundamentally the same star dust.

This is correct, of course. But, what if 'a' = 0 ?

Then 'b=0'. Simple.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that '0' symbolizes 'nothing'. On a number line it falls between -1 and +1. It's a place.

reply to post by jiggerj


Well you indeed could move your hand the problem becomes there is no frame of reference so you dont know you did. So in effect it would seem like you didnt even though you did. So you would feel like you havnt moved even cant move. But you can but now the question becomes if you cant tell you moved why bother.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

I think a great philosopher has something to add to this discussion.

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams

There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
Douglas Adams

LOL - and the answer is.........

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Well you indeed could move your hand the problem becomes there is no frame of reference so you know you did. So in effect it would seem like you didnt even though you did. So you would feel like you havnt moved even cant move. But you can but know the question comes if you cant tell you moved why bother.

No - there is an intenal sense - the Kinesthetic sense - that was discovered/or uncovered in the sixties during sensory deprevation experiments.

Originally posted by HarryTZ
Nothing isn't a vacuum. A vacuum has space and time. Nothing is non-local, non-dual.

Non-local can not be considered nothing as by definition non-local means is "action at a distance with no intermediate agency or mechanism."

en.wikipedia.org...

In other words - non-locality requires 'stuff' to happen.

reply to post by FyreByrd


By non-local I mean the absence of space and time.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Seeing as the universe exists, it proves that a realm of nothingness has never existed. There had to have always been something. So, that something (quantum particles, waves, or even something before that we don't know about yet) was not created and has always existed.

Thanks for reading.

edit on 5/28/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)

I don't really think that this flies in the face of religious beliefs, since most forms of theism (as far as I know) believe God always existed.
While I think you raise an intriguing point (if God always existed, how did He create something from nothing) I don't think it disproves the "Prime Mover." For instance, as someone else pointed out, we could be in a situation like a computer simulation: first there was nothing (think "Create New Project") and then there was something (think: "Add Customized Planets" )
Or, alternately, we could all be thoughts in the mind of God.
I don't really believe either of those, but I just thought I'd throw them out there to illustrate how a universe could come into existence.
Interesting topic