The following is not a question: Can something come from nothing?

[pocaracas]

That you know of, is there any conscious agent whose consciousness doesn't rely on an inanimate object... or rather, on many such objects?

Let's see...we've been comparing god and a singularity...whadda you think?

Keyword "know"...

[ManMachine]

---

Since this crops up every week in arguments, I thought I'd make a thread.

The notion of things coming from other things is not applicable to the universe as a whole.

Before and after

When we use the words "coming from", "causing" etc., we allude to principles we have learned from experiences which we have made within our universe. With the help of physics, we can have a pretty decent understanding what lies behind these intuitions, what it means for something to cause something, for something to come from something.

It boils down to statistics: imagine you walk through the forest along a small creek, the trees are swaying gently in the wind. Imagine you have your camera with you and you film this scenery while you walk past the creek.



When you come home, you just for fun let the film roll backwards, and you notice that you can barely make out the difference: the trees are still swaying, and the water runs its shallow course. Since the slope of the river is not noticeable, there is no striking paradox. Until you reach a small waterfall.



Suddenly, it becomes all too clear that something is very wrong with this picture - the cascade runs backwards, waves from the shore coalescing on the creek to form droplets which emerge from the surface to travel upwards, losing their momentum until they integrate with a newly formed, almost unperturbed stream.

Why did the cascade so obviously violate your sense of time, while the other parts of the creek did not? The reason is entropy: the cascade is, from the physics point of view, a very irreversible process which produces lots of entropy. The creek running its course quietly produces entropy as well because of the friction the water experiences, but much less so than the cascade.

The surprising thing is this: nothing in the backwards-running movie violates the laws of physics. The only thing that is striking is how utterly unlikely the events are which we witness in it. In the same way, the laws of physics do not really dictate our everyday arrow of time, which events we interpret as future, which as past. It is merely a matter of probabilities, because increase in Entropy is exactly this: the transition from a less likely state to a more likely one.

No Time

The moral of this story is this: causation is a statistical phenomenon in a world of increasing entropy. Do not think that your intuition about what past and future mean, what causation means, can be applied to realms which are radically different.

Some want to go even further and discuss the origin of the universe, or let us say, of being itself, from nothingness.

Note what has happened: we use the words which have meanings in our everyday lives as well as in science, and try to apply them in a scenario so different that none of them retain any meaning. Two things spoil the question: if there is no universe full of particles doing their statistical dance, there is no notion of an arrow of time, even if we assume that time as a continuous parameter exists. However, if we let even go of this, if we feel compelled to talk about the creation of time itself, all meaning is lost, and the questions we utter merely resemble questions, but in reality only mimic them.

---

What would you suggest we use instead of words and meanings?

Now, I'd like to provide my response in the form of interpretive dance...

[John V]

Keyword "know"...

Are you suggesting that one can't provide logical reasoning for the existence of a thing, unless they've already proven its existence? I was giving you an opportunity to back away from it.

[pocaracas]

Keyword "know"...

Are you suggesting that one can't provide logical reasoning for the existence of a thing, unless they've already proven its existence? I was giving you an opportunity to back away from it.

"they have"?

[John V]

"they have"?

"Just playing games now because your point was ridiculous?"

[MJ the Skeptical]

I agree with what Tracey said on The Atheist Experience.

There isn't a "nothing" to investigate, everything we see was something coming from something (since our cosmos is not empty but full of particles and other activity on the quantum level).

[pocaracas]

"they have"?

"Just playing games now because your point was ridiculous?"

No... your point is ridiculous...
Are you trying to equate "logical reasoning for the existence of" "an inanimate object" with "logical reasoning for the existence of a " "conscious agent"?

Even when there are experiments which demonstrate the existence of said "inanimate object", while no experiment yet devised can yield that particular "conscious agent" that you wish to demonstrate....?

[LostLocke]

If god existed eternally prior to creating the universe, then I would expect him to continue to exist eternally without creating a universe.

I have a suspicious feeling your response will involve god being 'outside' time, which can apply to the singularity also, so keep that in mind before you state that.

No, my response is that it's reasonable to have the expectation of continuity regarding an inanimate object, but not reasonable regarding a conscious agent.

Ah, that's actually good.
Now, what if I were to tell you that the singularity didn't exist eternally. In fact, it didn't exist for any length of time.

[John V]

"Just playing games now because your point was ridiculous?"

No... your point is ridiculous...
Are you trying to equate "logical reasoning for the existence of" "an inanimate object" with "logical reasoning for the existence of a " "conscious agent"?

Even when there are experiments which demonstrate the existence of said "inanimate object", while no experiment yet devised can yield that particular "conscious agent" that you wish to demonstrate....?

"yet devised"?

[pocaracas]

No... your point is ridiculous...
Are you trying to equate "logical reasoning for the existence of" "an inanimate object" with "logical reasoning for the existence of a " "conscious agent"?

Even when there are experiments which demonstrate the existence of said "inanimate object", while no experiment yet devised can yield that particular "conscious agent" that you wish to demonstrate....?

"yet devised"?

I make no claims about the future.