Can scientist do magic?

[afungusamongus]

I’m becoming more and more familiar with people who claim that things can arise without causes. What is the good ways to answer these types of assertions? I’m really lost as to how people can refute such a fundamental and core part of our universe.

Any ideas that might help?

 

[michaelmas]

Physics tells us you can’t have something from nothing. So tell me how does the big bang happen if there was nothing prior? It goes against all scientific reasoning.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I’m becoming more and more familiar with people who claim that things can arise without causes. What is the good ways to answer these types of assertions? I’m really lost as to how people can refute such a fundamental and core part of our universe.

Any ideas that might help?

I suppose these people are discussing vacuum particles. I think a good help is found here: profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

Basically, it boils down to this: there are no particles created or destroyed with “vacuum particle”. It is the effect of a disturbance in the electro-magnetic field in a particular region. This disturbance causes the charged particles passing through the disturbance to momentarily separate into photons before recombining into the charged particles.

QED: There is a cause!

Please let me know if this is not what you are encountering.

 

[NonServiam]

I think the problem arises when people start making claims like, “Something cannot come from nothing!”

The problem is that this claim isn’t really something we know: we have lots of examples of something coming from something else, but that’s a long way from demonstrating that it’s impossible for something to come from nothing. As an analogy, imagine if I only saw white swans, and I concluded, therefore, that black swans must not exist: the same fallacy is occurring when one sees all things that come from other things and concludes that therefore everything must come from something else.

Further, the use of the word “nothing” in the claim is utterly baffling. What does “nothing” mean? Do we have an example of “nothing” that we can study and demonstrate that something cannot come from it? Presumably, people making this claim are using the word “nothing” to signify some kind of cosmic emptiness, the absence of all things: if that’s the case, if that’s what “nothing” means, we clearly don’t have an example of it to examine, so how can conclude that nothing can come from it?

“Something cannot come from nothing” simply isn’t a claim that can be sufficiently supported, and I think that once we start trying to parse what “nothing” actually means, the claim comes close to being nonsensical.

 

[Theophorus]

“Something cannot come from nothing” simply isn’t a claim that can be sufficiently supported, and I think that once we start trying to parse what “nothing” actually means, the claim comes close to being nonsensical.

nothing is exactly that: no-thing, it is the absence of existant reality.

So Think about it for a minute, if something were to come from ‘nothing’ then this ‘nothing’ would clearly have the possibility to become/produce/contain/facilitate etc. the aforementioned something. Now since this ‘nothing’ has the posibility to do so, it can’t be nothing as nothing would have no properties whatsoever. That’s why we say nothing comes from nothing(ex nihilo nihil fit)

 

[edwest2]

I think the problem arises when people start making claims like, “Something cannot come from nothing!”

The problem is that this claim isn’t really something we know: we have lots of examples of something coming from something else, but that’s a long way from demonstrating that it’s impossible for something to come from nothing. As an analogy, imagine if I only saw white swans, and I concluded, therefore, that black swans must not exist: the same fallacy is occurring when one sees all things that come from other things and concludes that therefore everything must come from something else.

Further, the use of the word “nothing” in the claim is utterly baffling. What does “nothing” mean? Do we have an example of “nothing” that we can study and demonstrate that something cannot come from it? Presumably, people making this claim are using the word “nothing” to signify some kind of cosmic emptiness, the absence of all things: if that’s the case, if that’s what “nothing” means, we clearly don’t have an example of it to examine, so how can conclude that nothing can come from it?

“Something cannot come from nothing” simply isn’t a claim that can be sufficiently supported, and I think that once we start trying to parse what “nothing” actually means, the claim comes close to being nonsensical.

Broadly speaking, nothing is the absence of something. Are there areas of space that contain nothing? Some would say, yes. However, the so-called “cosmic background radiation” appears to exist in all directions.

Something cannot come from nothing in a strict scientific sense. And scientists cannot perform magic. The issue, I think, is a lack of understanding. An electron has mass and orbits a nucleus. What keeps it in motion? What is its power source?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’m becoming more and more familiar with people who claim that things can arise without causes. What is the good ways to answer these types of assertions? I’m really lost as to how people can refute such a fundamental and core part of our universe.

Any ideas that might help?

Can you provide a few examples?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[NonServiam]

Well, what you’re doing is defining “nothing” and saying that, by the definition you’re giving, it’s not possible for something to come from it. That’s all well and good – and it makes for a perfectly fine word game to pass the time – but the real question is whether what you’re talking about bears any relationship to reality.

By the definition you give, “nothing” could never be – since, in order to be, it would have to be something other than nothing – making “nothing” an entirely imaginary, made-up concept. This makes everything you’re saying total fantasy. At best, it’s just a clever little word game you’ve made up to amuse yourself.

The claim “Something cannot come from nothing” is either the description of a make-believe concept called “nothing” – which is what you’re suggesting when you define “nothing” in a way that makes it impossible to be – or it’s a claim about the real world that we can evaluate. If it is a claim that we can evaluate, we need to examine “nothing” and demonstrate that something cannot come from it before we can accept that claim.

 

[J_Peterson]

Well, what you’re doing is defining “nothing” and saying that, by the definition you’re giving, it’s not possible for something to come from it. That’s all well and good – and it makes for a perfectly fine word game to pass the time – but the real question is whether what you’re talking about bears any relationship to reality.

By the definition you give, “nothing” could never be – since, in order to be, it would have to be something other than nothing – making “nothing” an entirely imaginary, made-up concept. This makes everything you’re saying total fantasy. At best, it’s just a clever little word game you’ve made up to amuse yourself.

The claim “Something cannot come from nothing” is either gibberish – which is what you’re suggesting when you define “nothing” in a way that makes it impossible to be – or it’s a claim that we can evaluate. If it is a claim that we can evaluate, we need to examine “nothing” and demonstrate that something cannot come from it before we can accept that claim.

It’s the scientists that are playing word games. They don’t believe that “nothing” as it’s always been defined exists, so they redefine “nothing” to mean a 0 sum energy field and then show how something can come from this new version of “nothing”. Then of course if you ask what lies beyond the primordial energy fields they say you’re moving the goal posts (as if they could be moved beyond where Catholic theology and philosophy placed them hundreds of years ago).

 

[NonServiam]

Then of course if you ask what lies beyond the primordial energy fields they say you’re moving the goal posts

Actually I think if you asked a scientist what lies beyond the primordial energy fields, most of them would reply honestly and say, “I don’t know.”

If you do know – and have evidence to back up your claim – there’s a nobel prize with your name on it.

 

[Gaber]

Physics tells us you can’t have something from nothing. So tell me how does the big bang happen if there was nothing prior? It goes against all scientific reasoning.

Actually, physics tells us that all things are constantly flashing in and out of existance. The Rishis of India told us that thousands of years ago.

 

[Gaber]

I think the problem arises when people start making claims like, “Something cannot come from nothing!”

The problem is that this claim isn’t really something we know: we have lots of examples of something coming from something else, but that’s a long way from demonstrating that it’s impossible for something to come from nothing. As an analogy, imagine if I only saw white swans, and I concluded, therefore, that black swans must not exist: the same fallacy is occurring when one sees all things that come from other things and concludes that therefore everything must come from something else.

Further, the use of the word “nothing” in the claim is utterly baffling. What does “nothing” mean? Do we have an example of “nothing” that we can study and demonstrate that something cannot come from it? Presumably, people making this claim are using the word “nothing” to signify some kind of cosmic emptiness, the absence of all things: if that’s the case, if that’s what “nothing” means, we clearly don’t have an example of it to examine, so how can conclude that nothing can come from it?

“Something cannot come from nothing” simply isn’t a claim that can be sufficiently supported, and I think that once we start trying to parse what “nothing” actually means, the claim comes close to being nonsensical.

This is very well stated. Thank you. It also reminds me of the idea that to mortal mind or human rational mind the Allness of God appears as emptyness or nothing.

 

[Gaber]

Broadly speaking, nothing is the absence of something. Are there areas of space that contain nothing? Some would say, yes. However, the so-called “cosmic background radiation” appears to exist in all directions.

Something cannot come from nothing in a strict scientific sense. And scientists cannot perform magic. The issue, I think, is a lack of understanding. An electron has mass and orbits a nucleus. What keeps it in motion? What is its power source?

Peace,
Ed

This also is well stated. It reminds me again of Asimov’s Law: “Any technology, sufficiently advanced, appears to be magic.” That could be anything from a remote control to a pattern in that NLP stuff that cures many unwanted behaviors in a few minutes.

 

[Theophorus]

Well, what you’re doing is defining “nothing” and saying that, by the definition you’re giving, it’s not possible for something to come from it. That’s all well and good – and it makes for a perfectly fine word game to pass the time – but the real question is whether what you’re talking about bears any relationship to reality.

By the definition you give, “nothing” could never be – since, in order to be, it would have to be something other than nothing – making “nothing” an entirely imaginary, made-up concept. This makes everything you’re saying total fantasy. At best, it’s just a clever little word game you’ve made up to amuse yourself.

The claim “Something cannot come from nothing” is either the description of a make-believe concept called “nothing” – which is what you’re suggesting when you define “nothing” in a way that makes it impossible to be – or it’s a claim about the real world that we can evaluate. If it is a claim that we can evaluate, we need to examine “nothing” and demonstrate that something cannot come from it before we can accept that claim.

So on your view nothing exists in reality (Or as some other re-definition) As opposed to being a lack of said reality? good for you!

I’m not refering to a vacuum etc. but I’m taking reality and naming it’s opposite (a total privation of reality, to use philosophical language on a philosophical forum) not playing word games, So I will stick with the dictionary and philosophical defination of nothing as it is the most rational one.

 

[J_Peterson]

Actually I think if you asked a scientist what lies beyond the primordial energy fields, most of them would reply honestly and say, “I don’t know.”

If you do know – and have evidence to back up your claim – there’s a nobel prize with your name on it.

Yes, “I don’t know” is the only honest answer. My problem is that just because they think they may have figured out how our tiny little universe popped into existence, there is no longer any need for a Creator. I don’t believe that God simply started the universe, he causes the very existence of it, not just in the past but in the here and now.

The fact that there may be some field that the universe exists in points to a wider reality that we don’t really have access to, except maybe through mathematics and mysticism.

 

[Gaber]

Yes, “I don’t know” is the only honest answer. My problem is that just because they think they may have figured out how our tiny little universe popped into existence, there is no longer any need for a Creator. I don’t believe that God simply started the universe, he causes the very existence of it, not just in the past but in the here and now.

The fact that there may be some field that the universe exists in points to a wider reality that we don’t really have access to, except maybe through mathematics and mysticism.

I thought that at the higher levels mathematis* is *mysticism, or better, its advanced cousin, contemplation!

 

[edwest2]

This also is well stated. It reminds me again of Asimov’s Law: “Any technology, sufficiently advanced, appears to be magic.” That could be anything from a remote control to a pattern in that NLP stuff that cures many unwanted behaviors in a few minutes.

May I respectfully point out that you have the wrong author.

Arthur C. Clarke said: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

I do not believe this is true, having studied the supernatural for many years as a researcher, not as an attempted practitioner.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gaber]

May I respectfully point out that you have the wrong author.

Arthur C. Clarke said: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

I do not believe this is true, having studied the supernatural for many years as a researcher, not as an attempted practitioner.

Peace,
Ed

Darn, I’m an author lysdexic!! Whoda thunk…Thanks!
Would you care to expand on your last statement? Intruiging!

 

[edwest2]

After researching magic, it is clear that there are various forms and various components. I’m not going to provide a “how to” but the general practice of magic usually involved known and unknown spirits. By known, I mean they were recognized as existing in nature. In modern Hong Kong, people still whisper “Fox spirit” if a bad event occurred.

To perform “real magic,” one needed the proper components, which may include animal parts, crystals and stones and objects considered to have been given magical properties that were either imparted into them by the gods, or given as a gift from supernatural beings, including the gods, or had innate properties that caused them to be useful in creating supernatural effects. The components had to be prepared a certain way or arranged a certain way or used at a particular time of day. This also included the use of magical symbols, pentagrams and locations that acquired some sacred significance.

The purpose of magic never involved the mimicking of any technology we have now or will likely develop in the near future or anything I’ve seen in science fiction to date. The basic purposes were many:

To bring rain.
To cure disease in livestock or people.
To produce a bountiful harvest.
To attract a mate.
To put a hex or curse on someone.
To kill another, directly or indirectly.
To protect a person or tribe.
To magically create something like gold or precious gems.

These “primitive” beliefs were sometimes based on something happening, but did the magic attract the mate or was it just meant to be without the intervention of any magic? Was a person “cured” of an illness because it ran its course or by magic?

All of our present science is based on information known to anyone with an education. It is too simplistic to compare what practitioners of magic did to any of our technologies.

I have read of advanced nanotechnology that might be available in the near future. Since it is based on existing knowledge and technology, I don’t see where any connection can be made to magic. I mean I’ve read science fiction stories where a space traveler would cure a very human but very primitive alien by giving him an injection or a small amount of powder added to some water to cure him. But - what is never expressed in the stories I know of is this - if you took those very primitive people and trained them in the use of our advanced technology and how it worked, it would cease to be “magic” to them.

So I see no basis for Mr. Clarke’s statement.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Gaber]

After researching magic, it is clear that there are various forms and various components. I’m not going to provide a “how to” but the general practice of magic usually involved known and unknown spirits. By known, I mean they were recognized as existing in nature. In modern Hong Kong, people still whisper “Fox spirit” if a bad event occurred.

To perform “real magic,” one needed the proper components, which may include animal parts, crystals and stones and objects considered to have been given magical properties that were either imparted into them by the gods, or given as a gift from supernatural beings, including the gods, or had innate properties that caused them to be useful in creating supernatural effects. The components had to be prepared a certain way or arranged a certain way or used at a particular time of day. This also included the use of magical symbols, pentagrams and locations that acquired some sacred significance.

The purpose of magic never involved the mimicking of any technology we have now or will likely develop in the near future or anything I’ve seen in science fiction to date. The basic purposes were many:

To bring rain.
To cure disease in livestock or people.
To produce a bountiful harvest.
To attract a mate.
To put a hex or curse on someone.
To kill another, directly or indirectly.
To protect a person or tribe.
To magically create something like gold or precious gems.

These “primitive” beliefs were sometimes based on something happening, but did the magic attract the mate or was it just meant to be without the intervention of any magic? Was a person “cured” of an illness because it ran its course or by magic?

All of our present science is based on information known to anyone with an education. It is too simplistic to compare what practitioners of magic did to any of our technologies.

I have read of advanced nanotechnology that might be available in the near future. Since it is based on existing knowledge and technology, I don’t see where any connection can be made to magic. I mean I’ve read science fiction stories where a space traveler would cure a very human but very primitive alien by giving him an injection or a small amount of powder added to some water to cure him. But - what is never expressed in the stories I know of is this - if you took those very primitive people and trained them in the use of our advanced technology and how it worked, it would cease to be “magic” to them.

So I see no basis for Mr. Clarke’s statement.

Peace,
Ed

Thanks for your explanation!

Yes, I agree with that someone ignorant of tech can be educated into it, but I hold that at least as far as initial impressions go, his statement holds. I offer as an example the cargo cults and the common logical falacy of magical thinking so prevalent today.

Also, what might you think of paleontological assesments of “primitive” humankind being ignorant and superstitious, when indeed they might have had, in some cases, a superior “interior” technology to ours. I’m refering to the theory of cycles of awareness such as claimed by the idea of “yugas” and the comonalith of mythic themes among cultures seemingly unconected.