A general topic on "what started it all..."

[Dharan]

Hi, I am not very good in physics, and even worse in cosmology. However, I often ponder origins of the universe

1. I am wondering if someone can help me understand why we have 'something' instead of 'nothing at all'. I cant follow the Stephen Hawking arguments. I'm sure this topic has been discussed ad infinitum. But hoping someone will get me up to speed.

Thanks,

Dharan

[Ryft]

There is much in the way of metaphysical speculation, but none of it is based on science. If you want a scientific answer, you will have to be content with "we don't know" because science is predicated on phenomena of our space-time manifold. Science cannot be done where there is no space-time manifold, i.e., at the singularity or any transcendent reality (whether gods or multiverses, et cetera).

[Darwinian]

Hi, I am not very good in physics, and even worse in cosmology. However, I often ponder origins of the universe

1. I am wondering if someone can help me understand why we have 'something' instead of 'nothing at all'. I cant follow the Stephen Hawking arguments. I'm sure this topic has been discussed ad infinitum. But hoping someone will get me up to speed.

Thanks,

Dharan

Because we can't have 'nothing'. Where would 'nothing' be? By very definition 'nothing' is the absence of all existence and so cannot in itself exist.

Therefore, 'something' must exist and it must have existed for all time, because without 'something' time has no meaning and therefore cannot exist either.

[Dharan]

Darwinian, You have satisfied my question as to why 'nothing' doesn't exist (correct) and you have satisfied my question as to why if something exists, then something must have existed for all time (correct).

I cant yet see how you have addressed the question as to why something exists. Are you suggesting something must exist to satisfy its polar relationship to nothing (which cant exist)?

---

arcanus,

If science doesnt know, then why arent scientists more open minded toward religion? Is it easier to not know? than to go down the path of learning to 'know'?

I often hear scientists suggest that religion and science are seperate magisteria which do not interact. Yet scientists often start out christians and convert to atheism during the course of their studies. So there truly must be some interactions between the two paradigms

[leo-rcc]

If science doesnt know, then why arent scientists more open minded toward religion? Is it easier to not know? than to go down the path of learning to 'know'?

In that sentence you seem to be indicating that religion somehow does know. The problem lies in the fact that religion may claim to "know" a lot of things but has no basis of evidence for it. If religion would say "This is how it's done" and it is testable therefore falsifiable, then scientists would certainly be interested. But so far all religion has done is make assertions and proclaim them as knowledge.

[Ryft]

... and you have satisfied my question as to why if something exists, then something must have existed for all time (correct).

If space and time are combined into a single manifold (q.v. Einstein), then "existed for all time" does not imply eternity but, rather, terminates at this same singularity.

If science doesn't know, then why aren't scientists more open-minded toward religion?

First, a significant percentage of scientists are religious. Second, an even larger percentage of scientists (obviously including the religious ones) are open-minded toward religion; one can be atheistic and open-minded toward religion, in contradistinction to those like Richard Dawkins. Third, religion does not have a monopoly on speculations about the universe's origins; there are non-religious speculations (e.g., ekpyrotic cosmological model).

Is it easier to not know? than to go down the path of learning to 'know'?

It all depends on how one proposes that we know anything. Those who advocate Scientism, whether explicitly or implicitly (e.g., leo-rcc), hold that even epistemology is subject to the authority of science, which means they would insist that "the path of learning to know" stops where science stops, at the singularity.

Is it easier to not know? Well, ignorance takes less work, yeah.

I often hear scientists suggest that religion and science are separate magisteria which do not interact. Yet scientists often start out Christians and convert to atheism during the course of their studies. So there truly must be some interactions between the two paradigms

First, it again all depends on the person's philosophy or worldview. Stephen Jay Gould proposed non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), Richard Dawkins thinks Gould is talking nonsense for allowing religion any quarter (only one magisteria or OOMA), and Alister McGrath proposed partially overlapping magisteria (POMA). Second, there are also many scientists who start out as atheists and convert to Christianity during the course of their studies (e.g., John Polkinghorne). Third, conversion anecdotes have no substantive relevance beyond biographical information.

[Darwinian]

I cant yet see how you have addressed the question as to why something exists. Are you suggesting something must exist to satisfy its polar relationship to nothing (which cant exist)?

Something can't have a polar relationship with nothing because 'something' exists and 'nothing' is simply an intellectual construct or an idea.

Why have we got something and not nothing? Because we can't have nothing and we also can't have 'something' not existing.

But this still doesn't really answer the question. Perhaps it's unanswerable

I suspect it's all wrapped up with time. Without time, 'something' can't have existed, exist or continue to exist. Perhaps time is the canvas that 'something' needs. On the other hand, without 'something' then time has no meaning either.

Perhaps it's all to do with the observer. Does 'something' really exist if there is no-one to observe it?

Solipsism, here I come again hock:

[LEDO]

I read that existance is 60% more stable than non-existance.

[Edwardo Piet]

Perhaps it's all to do with the observer. Does 'something' really exist if there is no-one to observe it?

Solipsism, here I come again hock:

If a tree falls and no one is there to hear it...does it make a sound? (as in sound waves regardless of it's heard or not?)....

Yes.

And for the same reason I say things in general can exist without any observers.

EvF

[Dharan]

Leo,

I'm not certain that religion does 'know', but it seems that (at least some) seekers among many creeds are actively searching for an answer- by quantitative, qualitative or anecdotal means. Conversely, natural scientists often appear content to avoid the subject as if future knowledge cant exist because it hasnt previously been demonstrated.

Microbes existed, and had profound effects on human life, long before fleming discovered them. Does anything exist today that hasnt yet been discovered? I fear science may have given up too early, and relgated these questions to the religious proponents who may not be trained to provide the kind of evidence scientists would respect.

If science doesnt know, then why arent scientists more open minded toward religion? Is it easier to not know? than to go down the path of learning to 'know'?

In that sentence you seem to be indicating that religion somehow does know. The problem lies in the fact that religion may claim to "know" a lot of things but has no basis of evidence for it. If religion would say "This is how it's done" and it is testable therefore falsifiable, then scientists would certainly be interested. But so far all religion has done is make assertions and proclaim them as knowledge.

---

I cant yet see how you have addressed the question as to why something exists. Are you suggesting something must exist to satisfy its polar relationship to nothing (which cant exist)?

Something can't have a polar relationship with nothing because 'something' exists and 'nothing' is simply an intellectual construct or an idea.

Why have we got something and not nothing? Because we can't have nothing and we also can't have 'something' not existing.

But this still doesn't really answer the question. Perhaps it's unanswerable

I suspect it's all wrapped up with time. Without time, 'something' can't have existed, exist or continue to exist. Perhaps time is the canvas that 'something' needs. On the other hand, without 'something' then time has no meaning either.

Perhaps it's all to do with the observer. Does 'something' really exist if there is no-one to observe it?

Solipsism, here I come again hock:

Darwinian,

thanks for the chuckle. But seriously, the question posed (from the eyes of a child) cant be easily answered without philosophy, which for me is like mental gymnastics. If scientists cant answer this question to anyone's satisfaction (I dont know if anyone besides Hawking really understands how anti-matter can exist as part of nothing), then how can Richard Dawkens et al. justify being so confident that nothing exists beyond the something we now see

---

... and you have satisfied my question as to why if something exists, then something must have existed for all time (correct).

If space and time are combined into a single manifold (q.v. Einstein), then "existed for all time" does not imply eternity but, rather, terminates at this same singularity.

If science doesn't know, then why aren't scientists more open-minded toward religion?

First, a significant percentage of scientists are religious. Second, an even larger percentage of scientists (obviously including the religious ones) are open-minded toward religion; one can be atheistic and open-minded toward religion, in contradistinction to those like Richard Dawkins. Third, religion does not have a monopoly on speculations about the universe's origins; there are non-religious speculations (e.g., ekpyrotic cosmological model).

Is it easier to not know? than to go down the path of learning to 'know'?

It all depends on how one proposes that we know anything. Those who advocate Scientism, whether explicitly or implicitly (e.g., leo-rcc), hold that even epistemology is subject to the authority of science, which means they would insist that "the path of learning to know" stops where science stops, at the singularity.

Is it easier to not know? Well, ignorance takes less work, yeah.

I often hear scientists suggest that religion and science are separate magisteria which do not interact. Yet scientists often start out Christians and convert to atheism during the course of their studies. So there truly must be some interactions between the two paradigms

First, it again all depends on the person's philosophy or worldview. Stephen Jay Gould proposed non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), Richard Dawkins thinks Gould is talking nonsense for allowing religion any quarter (only one magisteria or OOMA), and Alister McGrath proposed partially overlapping magisteria (POMA). Second, there are also many scientists who start out as atheists and convert to Christianity during the course of their studies (e.g., John Polkinghorne). Third, conversion anecdotes have no substantive relevance beyond biographical information.

Arcanus,

I too have heard that scientists are often beleivers (particulary physicists), but among the scientists I have known, scores, I would say fewer than 5% would admit to it. Seems to be a taboo topic, maybe an artifact of the chasm between science and religion (real or perceived.

I wonder if the upper limits of our current knowledge, poor instrumentation, and reductionist epistemology have led to the differences in opinion relating to relationships among the magisteria. If the religious way of 'knowing' could be translated to a physical way of 'knowing' then maybe we might end up with one grand magisteria (TEO).

A paricularly interesting article suggests that the temporal lobe (spiritual experience or the 'God organ') may be likened to a radio rather than a CD Player. eg the experience it conveys may not be limited to the internal sum of parts, may translate external information to the recipient similar to our other senses. Pseudo-science? or research worth further quantification? Im reading some interesting stuff on NDE as well. I think this extraordinary information either needs to be refuted, or welcomed into science, rather than ignored by science.