Argument Against an Infinite Past

[max-greece]

Well.....lets start with a circle - find me the beginning.

Now consider time - we are used to it flowing in one direction from an earlier point to a later one. We therefore surmise time had a beginning and we can put that at the beginning of the universe (which is known as space/time). There is no before the beginning as time itself did not exist (nothing existing - as in nothingness).

Describing 'nothingness' as 'existing' is a contradiction.

Several thoughts going on from this include:

Suppose time is circular.
Was nothingness infinite? Can nothingness be infinite?
What if (as is proposed under Quantum Physics) nothingness is inherrently unstable?
Could a universe form in those circumstances (if the net energy state of the universe is zero)?
Without outside interference?

Calling empty space 'nothingness' is unhelpful and bad in my opinion. Empty space is something, not nothing. And nothingness could not have properties like instability.

OK.

I am not calling empty space nothingness. I am calling what existed prior to the universe as nothingness - no fields, no particles, no gravity - nothing.

To illustrate. Matter and anti-matter collide - they eliminate each other completely. That resultant state is nothingness.

The universe from nothing theory is essentially that process in reverse.

The argument as to whether we can refer to nothingness as existing is mute. In that we are making reference to the something that makes up the universe I think we can refer to the existence of nothingness - if nothing else to recognise the possible state where there is nothing.

[MindForgedManacle]

OK.

I am not calling empty space nothingness. I am calling what existed prior to the universe as nothingness - no fields, no particles, no gravity - nothing.

Well you see, the question of what existed 'prior' to the universe is, to put it mildly, controversial. More accurately, unknown at this point. However, most of (if not all) the proposals have something existing prior, be that a vacuum or something else entirely.

To illustrate. Matter and anti-matter collide - they eliminate each other completely. That resultant state is nothingness.

I don't think that's actually a correct way of looking at it. Virtual particle pairs neither come "from" nothing nor "return" to it.

The universe from nothing theory is essentially that process in reverse.

Which if true would make it inescapably inexplicable.

The argument as to whether we can refer to nothingness as existing is mute. In that we are making reference to the something that makes up the universe I think we can refer to the existence of nothingness - if nothing else to recognise the possible state where there is nothing.

It's not moot if it makes no sense. A 'state' of nothingness wouldn't be a state at all, but no thing at all. It's a nonsense concept I think.

[Jackalope]

It's my current view that both concepts of "prime mover / uncaused cause" and "infinite regress" are problematic. I may be entirely wrong on this, but I don't think that either has been adequately logically demonstrated, nor can either be necessarily ruled out. Nor, for that matter, is it necessarily a case of it being one or the other - if, for example, we are mistaken about the nature and necessity of causality - particularly in spatial-temporal locations where our concept of physics breaks down.

TL;DR: I simply don't think we know enough to answer such questions definitively.

Are you kidding, infinite regress is a solid refutation against a god.

The paragraph you just typed is simply another apology to excuse shifting the burden of proof.

"You can neither prove or disprove". Good science and good logic does not work as a 50/50 proposition. Otherwise "all claims are true by default until disproven" , and you know that is a ridiculous statement.

I really don't think you grasped the intended meaning of what I wrote.

[Anomalocaris]

The ploy contrive to get to a number of preconceived absurdums with seemingly just one reductio, and therefore seem to possess a certain economy that can be used to take the focus away from the fact that it reached nothing but absurdums .

[max-greece]

OK.

I am not calling empty space nothingness. I am calling what existed prior to the universe as nothingness - no fields, no particles, no gravity - nothing.

Well you see, the question of what existed 'prior' to the universe is, to put it mildly, controversial. More accurately, unknown at this point. However, most of (if not all) the proposals have something existing prior, be that a vacuum or something else entirely.

To illustrate. Matter and anti-matter collide - they eliminate each other completely. That resultant state is nothingness.

I don't think that's actually a correct way of looking at it. Virtual particle pairs neither come "from" nothing nor "return" to it.

The universe from nothing theory is essentially that process in reverse.

Which if true would make it inescapably inexplicable.

The argument as to whether we can refer to nothingness as existing is mute. In that we are making reference to the something that makes up the universe I think we can refer to the existence of nothingness - if nothing else to recognise the possible state where there is nothing.

It's not moot if it makes no sense. A 'state' of nothingness wouldn't be a state at all, but no thing at all. It's a nonsense concept I think.

I don't have any problem with your issues - this is all very theoretical stuff and lets be honest - I don't really get it - I am just relaying the bits I picked up on.

As it happens it does appear that Quantum Physics allows for the spontaneous production of sub-particles from nothing.

There is a video on this on Youtube I have watched a couple of times by Professor Klauss - does it make sense - possibly - in as much as anything in Quantum Physics does.

One thing Klaus mentions is that nothingness has mass - and they can measure it. How nothingness can have mass I have no idea but there you go.

[Anomalocaris]

You can say, conceptually, quantum mechanisms removes the classical distinction between nothing and something. Nothing and something exists along the same continum of "thingness" and the fundamental nature of existence stipulates continuous variation of value of "thingness" conforming to some probability distribution function. It appears the whole universe can be a particularly outlying example of this variation within the probability distribution.

Does that imply there exists some profound substrate of nature beyond the "nothing" and "something" we see? Probably. Do we have a partial empirical discription of how the operations of this substrate would be perceived within our concept of time? Yes. Do we know if something conceptually analogous to time really operates within this substrate itself? No, we don't. Do we have any fundamental understanding of this substrate yet? No, we don't.

So, If our universe is but a outlier example, with its own time, of the fundamental and continuous process of the substrate, and we don't have a fundamental understanding of this substrate, any speculation about about whether time is infinite (ie it extends through the beginning of our universe into the substrate), or whether infinite time can be traversed, is airy speculation without the least fundation.

Since we have no fundamental understanding of the substrate driving these phenomenon, attributing intentionality to this substrate, and attributing to it the inferred properties of a undocumented guru combines a maximum of yokelish presumption with a maximum of provincial small mindedness.

[MindForgedManacle]

My main issue is more with the way physicists are naming some things. Max mentions that Krauss talks about 'nothingness' having mass. But what Krauss has said (in other instances) is that empty space has mass, so clearly in that case he (and some other physicists) are calling empty space 'nothing' or 'nothingness'. When the terms are used properly, it's all well and good. However, some physicists (Krauss is the notable one) have made the mistake of pushing it too far. For example, he once said before (I'm paraphrasing) that science has shown that something can come from nothing in reference to the production of virtual particles. However, they come from (I believe) vacuum energy, which is clearly something (i.e it exists), so Krauss' usage is misleading at times. He (probably accidentally, as far as I know) is conflating the usage of the term nothing in physics with the usual meaning of the word, which is "no thing".

That's why it doesn't make sense to say that 'nothingness has mass', when he's referring to empty space, or virtual particles being creatio ex nihilo.

Nothing big, just a slight annoyance with that misleading usage.

[max-greece]

My main issue is more with the way physicists are naming some things. Max mentions that Krauss talks about 'nothingness' having mass. But what Krauss has said (in other instances) is that empty space has mass, so clearly in that case he (and some other physicists) are calling empty space 'nothing' or 'nothingness'. When the terms are used properly, it's all well and good. However, some physicists (Krauss is the notable one) have made the mistake of pushing it too far. For example, he once said before (I'm paraphrasing) that science has shown that something can come from nothing in reference to the production of virtual particles. However, they come from (I believe) vacuum energy, which is clearly something (i.e it exists), so Krauss' usage is misleading at times. He (probably accidentally, as far as I know) is conflating the usage of the term nothing in physics with the usual meaning of the word, which is "no thing".

That's why it doesn't make sense to say that 'nothingness has mass', when he's referring to empty space, or virtual particles being creatio ex nihilo.

Nothing big, just a slight annoyance with that misleading usage.

One of the big challenges ahead I think will be to define nothing. Its not nearly as easy as it first appears. If, for example, it is within a field (magnetic / gravitational w.h.y.) its not nothing.

In defence of Krauss - he does show the work of another physicist looking inside a proton. Within the normally described nothingness part there's a shitload of stuff going on. If I remember correctly he also attributed 70% of the mass of the proton to this nothingness.

BTW - I am using nothingness - Krauss only ever describes it as nothing - this confused the hell out of me with lines like "nothing has mass".

I am hoping my clarification of terms doesn't change anything fundamental in the physics.

I cannot recall which physicist came up with the matter / anti-matter annihilation as an explanation - needless to say its not mine.

[Anomalocaris]

My main issue is more with the way physicists are naming some things. Max mentions that Krauss talks about 'nothingness' having mass. But what Krauss has said (in other instances) is that empty space has mass, so clearly in that case he (and some other physicists) are calling empty space 'nothing' or 'nothingness'. When the terms are used properly, it's all well and good. However, some physicists (Krauss is the notable one) have made the mistake of pushing it too far. For example, he once said before (I'm paraphrasing) that science has shown that something can come from nothing in reference to the production of virtual particles. However, they come from (I believe) vacuum energy, which is clearly something (i.e it exists), so Krauss' usage is misleading at times. He (probably accidentally, as far as I know) is conflating the usage of the term nothing in physics with the usual meaning of the word, which is "no thing".

That's why it doesn't make sense to say that 'nothingness has mass', when he's referring to empty space, or virtual particles being creatio ex nihilo.

Nothing big, just a slight annoyance with that misleading usage.

Physicists have agile minds that are able to manipulate multiple layers of symbolic meanings. This makes following their expressions an edifying mental exercise beyond the mere face values of their meanings, and offer some insight into how their minds work and make the connections between the different layers.

This is analogous to the way following the writtings of masters of an language is an edifying mental exercise that couldn't be matched by reading cliffsnotes, and offer insight into the concept of the workings of linguistic mastery.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nothing could be temporally prior to creation, since time is part of creation. The first cause could only be logically prior to traditional cause-effect relationships.