Can the laws of physics bring something into existence?

[Freedom of thought]

If you've read the grand design, Hawking claims that because there is a law of gravity, the universe can create itself out of nothing. Well, I understand he's not saying the universe is actually 'creating itself' in any sense, its slightly absurd to say the universe is creating itself, because it would have to exist before it existed to create itself, it sounded like sloppy wording to me. I understand the consequences of the uncertainty principle, and Hawkings (and many other cosmologists) arguments, but I'm not entirely sure. Can, by the laws of physics, something like a universe be brought into existence? My guess is that if a law of nature is described mathematically, and it tells us a universe can come from nothing, then the creation ex nihilo of the universe is permitted. But I don't know if I would say the laws are 'causing' anything, but permitting a universe to arise naturally, just as the guidelines of gravity only permit certain orbits of planets. Lennox has said mathematics cannot 'cause' anything, and when there is nothing to describe, the mathematics mean nothing. Then again, when a radioactive material decays, it 'creates' a new particle. I think the laws can re-arrange energy in this way, so if the total energy of the universe is 0, then the universe is simply a new arrangement of 'nothing' by the laws of physics. As Einstein has shown, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be re-arranged. What is your take on this?

[bennyboy]

For any given framework, you have at least two possibilities: it is part of another framework, or it is not. If it is, then you ask why that super-framework exists, etc.

Gravity is clearly part of a framework-- it is just one of the features of our universe. Therefore, the idea that gravity allowed the universe to create itself is just a different form of circle.

In my opinion, the only really sensible answer to cosmogony is to run naked down the street in the middle of the night, pulling your hair out in clumps and shrieking "It doesn't fucking make seeeeeeense. The universe cannot exiiiiiist!"

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, the 'laws of physics' don't bring things into existence. A physical law is a statement, usually mathematical, which describes some aspect of the physical universe. For instance, Boyle's Law (PV = k) describes the behaviour of gasses with regard to pressure and volume, but it doesn't cause helium to spring into existence.

Boru

[Rampant.A.I.]

If you've read the grand design, Hawking claims that because there is a law of gravity, the universe can create itself out of nothing. Well, I understand he's not saying the universe is actually 'creating itself' in any sense, its slightly absurd to say the universe is creating itself, because it would have to exist before it existed to create itself, it sounded like sloppy wording to me.

It's just another way of saying physics is different at Planck scale and prior.

The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory. One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally, because the scale of the universe is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-...verse.html

[MindForgedManacle]

For any given framework, you have at least two possibilities: it is part of another framework, or it is not. If it is, then you ask why that super-framework exists, etc.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here exactly. Frameworks exist to describe something, they're not out there. We just hope that they accurately describe what is out there. So it doesn't make sense here to ask why the framework itself exists.

Gravity is clearly part of a framework-- it is just one of the features of our universe. Therefore, the idea that gravity allowed the universe to create itself is just a different form of circle.

Oh so by "framework" you meant a feature of something, not our description of reality?

In my opinion, the only really sensible answer to cosmogony is to run naked down the street in the middle of the night, pulling your hair out in clumps and shrieking "It doesn't fucking make seeeeeeense. The universe cannot exiiiiiist!"

Or you could say that the universe has persisted from the past infinirely. And lo and behold, there are cosmoloical models (like the Carroll-Chen Model) which gives a plausible account of an eternal universe.

[Brian37]

No, the 'laws of physics' don't bring things into existence. A physical law is a statement, usually mathematical, which describes some aspect of the physical universe. For instance, Boyle's Law (PV = k) describes the behaviour of gasses with regard to pressure and volume, but it doesn't cause helium to spring into existence.

Boru

I hate opening this can of worms because theists always go "you used the word created, so therefore everything has a creator" or " You used the word Law so everything has to have a lawgiver".

Idiots don't understand those words have completely different meanings in science having nothing to do withe magic men with magic wands.

Yes, "laws" in science are not like laws government passes. "Laws" in science are a description of long term observations that DESCRIBE a consistency of repeated observation.

[archangle]

If you've read the grand design, Hawking claims that because there is a law of gravity, the universe can create itself out of nothing. Well, I understand he's not saying the universe is actually 'creating itself' in any sense, its slightly absurd to say the universe is creating itself, because it would have to exist before it existed to create itself, it sounded like sloppy wording to me. I understand the consequences of the uncertainty principle, and Hawkings (and many other cosmologists) arguments, but I'm not entirely sure. Can, by the laws of physics, something like a universe be brought into existence? My guess is that if a law of nature is described mathematically, and it tells us a universe can come from nothing, then the creation ex nihilo of the universe is permitted. But I don't know if I would say the laws are 'causing' anything, but permitting a universe to arise naturally, just as the guidelines of gravity only permit certain orbits of planets. Lennox has said mathematics cannot 'cause' anything, and when there is nothing to describe, the mathematics mean nothing. Then again, when a radioactive material decays, it 'creates' a new particle. I think the laws can re-arrange energy in this way, so if the total energy of the universe is 0, then the universe is simply a new arrangement of 'nothing' by the laws of physics. As Einstein has shown, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be re-arranged. What is your take on this?

you have to understand that these laws were not the reason the universe is here. The laws are here because of the universe. Silly people think they are the ones that tell the universe how to be the universe.

[bennyboy]

No, the 'laws of physics' don't bring things into existence. A physical law is a statement, usually mathematical, which describes some aspect of the physical universe. For instance, Boyle's Law (PV = k) describes the behaviour of gasses with regard to pressure and volume, but it doesn't cause helium to spring into existence.

Boru

I hate opening this can of worms because theists always go "you used the word created, so therefore everything has a creator" or " You used the word Law so everything has to have a lawgiver".

Idiots don't understand those words have completely different meanings in science having nothing to do withe magic men with magic wands.

Yes, "laws" in science are not like laws government passes. "Laws" in science are a description of long term observations that DESCRIBE a consistency of repeated observation.

For the most part, I agree. However, I don't think it's really fair to say scientific descriptions are just taken at face value with any further implications.

Whenever you describe something, you also imply something: that there's a reason for the behavior or property you're describing-- and, quite often, it's understood that the ultimate reason hasn't been discovered "yet." So when you talk about the rule of gravity, which is a fairly simple description of the behavior of massive objects at a distance, there's always the understanding: things don't just move-- there is something about the things, or the universe, or both, which allows their movement and necessitates it. We just don't understand what it is.

Nor is it unfair or nonsensical to conflate the mathematical description with that part of reality which underlies it-- whatever that might be. The words "law of gravity," therefore, can be equally taken to refer to the mathematical description of gravity as to the underlying aspect of reality which causes things to move.

[Rampant.A.I.]

If you've read the grand design, Hawking claims that because there is a law of gravity, the universe can create itself out of nothing. Well, I understand he's not saying the universe is actually 'creating itself' in any sense, its slightly absurd to say the universe is creating itself, because it would have to exist before it existed to create itself, it sounded like sloppy wording to me. I understand the consequences of the uncertainty principle, and Hawkings (and many other cosmologists) arguments, but I'm not entirely sure. Can, by the laws of physics, something like a universe be brought into existence? My guess is that if a law of nature is described mathematically, and it tells us a universe can come from nothing, then the creation ex nihilo of the universe is permitted. But I don't know if I would say the laws are 'causing' anything, but permitting a universe to arise naturally, just as the guidelines of gravity only permit certain orbits of planets. Lennox has said mathematics cannot 'cause' anything, and when there is nothing to describe, the mathematics mean nothing. Then again, when a radioactive material decays, it 'creates' a new particle. I think the laws can re-arrange energy in this way, so if the total energy of the universe is 0, then the universe is simply a new arrangement of 'nothing' by the laws of physics. As Einstein has shown, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be re-arranged. What is your take on this?

you have to understand that these laws were not the reason the universe is here. The laws are here because of the universe. Silly people think they are the ones that tell the universe how to be the universe. :roflol:

Agreed. There are few things more belligerently ignorant than claiming the laws of physics as observed today predate the universe, especially knowing the laws of physics were different at the beginning of the universe in Planck time.

[The Grand Nudger]

As always, language fails us when we leave the confines of our experience. There are bound to be ambiguities.

"The peasants are revolting"