Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[johnweeder]

I would like to comment on the concept of “nothing” from the physical world perspective. As different from the metaphysical.

It seems hard to say what nothing is. One may say there is a finite zero point energy so there is something! But, if so, one could also observe that this is merely our relative zero point… much like I add an arbitrary constant to the end of any indefinite integral.

Maybe nothingness may simply be relative and not absolute. If this universe reaches a state of maximum entropy, it does not matter what the absolute value is of the zero point is… no further work can be done even though particles may continue to move.

I personally think the physical world definition of “nothing” is much different from the “metaphysical” definition of it. In this sense, claim that quantum fluctuation give rise to particles out of nothingness is comparing apples/oranges when set against the claim that God created everything from nothing.

However, I would say that maybe before we try to understand how God creates from the metaphysical nothing, perhaps we should see if we even understand how the universe creates from the physical nothing.

 

[Linux]

I think you should take a look at Fr. Spitze’s’ site. He relates that some theorize that there was a singularity which was the Big Bang, others give dozens of other theories, even that there was something before the Big Bang. So my question is appropriate. But since you refuse to meet the channenge, I will just say that no one has proven that the universe could have created itself. Nor has anyone demonstrated that creation is taking place now. And if it could be proven, no one will be able to prove it was anyone but God.

Of couse people have all kinds of fantasies, that is what makes science fiction so popular.

Linus2nd

Every-moment that passes is an actualization of that which did not exist. The particular state of me sitting in a chair at 13:04 does not exist at 13.05, that is to say that my sitting in a chair at 13:05 was actualized from nothing since 13:05 did not exist at 13:04. The fact that i existed as sitting in a chair at 13:04 does not change the fact that my existing at 13:05 was actualized from nothing and was nothing at the time index of 13:04.

We are in a continuous state of becoming real from nothing. We proceed into existence; we are not existence itself. The universe is in a continuous state of becoming real from nothing.

You have a deistic notion of creation, where God creates things once and for all, and they simply continue to exist as one instant of existence.

 

[JimG]

It seems to me that the philosophical concept of “nothing” does indeed differ from the physical concept of “nothing.” Virtual antiparticles could indeed arise from empty space–I speak of empty physical space here.

But of course, one might also view, and probably should view, empty space as teeming with virtual particles and anti-particles which cancel each other out. Real particles can pop in and out of existence from the substrate of empty space filled with virtual particles.

But that kind of space is not what theologians or philosophers mean by “nothing.” Space is something. It must also be created.

No, what theologians mean by creation from nothing is that no prior entity exists–not space, not time, not matter, not energy, not virtual particles, not strings or branes. Not even physical laws, since there is nothing to which they could be applied.

 

[IvanHR]

I’m no scientist so I can’t really say something that will make a big difference, but I do have two things to say.

First, to the people that would argue (for example by the creation of the universe) disproves God or etc., or that just say there’s no God for whatever reasons (etc. BOSS10L), not specifically in this thread:

God can NEVER be disproved. Why? Lets set aside that (most of us here) believe in the one true God which the Bible talks about. How can you prove there’s no god? Maybe there’s a god who makes all of these things happen! Maybe there’s a god who makes people suffer, who makes people doubt, who put all these things in the universe so we would “conclude” there’s no god? I’m sure everyone agrees that no such god would ever exist. But how can even the most atheistic of atheists disprove it?

This puts my soul at rest. Of course, I do believe in the God which the Bible speaks of, and I hope I will die in that belief.

The other thing is that it stuns me to see Catholics argue about whether the universe created itself. I mean, we believe God created us and the world, why argue if He created the universe too? Of course, I don’t think anything bad about the people who argue here. It’s great to see such an interest in science from religious people.

 

[johnweeder]

“Nothing” is not the absence of matter and/or energy. If a thing can be talked about as having a real effect on anything, then it is not nothing. If a law can affect things, it is not nothing. If a quantum state is really there, then it (or whatever has that state) is not nothing, even if it hasn’t manifested matter right now and may later. If you can intelligently say that it effects something, then it is not nothing. If it can create, then it can effect things. So if it can create, it is not nothing.

I just don’t know. Metaphysically speaking, is the concept of 1 + 1 = 2 something or nothing? Physically, it is naught but a conclusion drawn upon arbitrary axioms. And, yet, it increased the entropy of the universe as I thought of it. Does it cease to exist if we do? Did exist before we thought of it? Is it even proper to say “it exists”?

If a wave function is a potentiality, does it only exist when observed? What about the wave function which never collapsed? Is it even proper to think of a wave function, a probability, as existing? Or is it more or less like 1 + 1 = 2? I can *say *I will flip a coin and it will come up heads or tails, does that mean the wave function for that exists? Is it something? WHEN is it something? Only upon actually flipping the coin?

Or do all things which are possible always exist in many worlds?

Consider the quantum bomb detector (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur%E2%80%93Vaidman_bomb_tester) which seems to suggest we can know something without observing it.

Or the quantum eraser (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_eraser_experiment), which seems to suggest we can go back and remove something after having observed it.

And, if you like, I can provide even more bizarre ideas.

In all these cases, what is something and what is nothing? And, maybe even when is something and when is nothing.

I would be interested to hear your perspective. I will frankly admit that while I have my own opinions, they are worth about exactly what was paid for them. None the less, I like to discuss it.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I chose a wiki page because it eliminates the possibility of you just saying I made something up.

It is not my job to personally defend decades of work by thousands of scientists.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

vaticanobservatory.org/index.php/en/research-highlights/extragalactic-astronomy/125-look-at-the-big-bang

Also check out:
vaticanobservatory.org/index.php/en/research-highlights/extragalactic-astronomy/172-cosmology-in-2010

Will do that, thank you.

Linus2nd

 

[johnweeder]

Every-moment that passes is an actualization of that which did not exist.

For the sake of discussion… you are assuming time.

What if time is a holographic illusion in the sense of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle. In this case, the true reality is you exist at all times at once. You merely perceive causality. Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five may be more real than you thought!

Consider how you appear from the perspective of a boson (like a photon). I understand they are unchanging and therefore timeless. I could consider that from the perspective of the photons traversing your room from 13:04 to 13:05 that you exist in all these times simultaneously.

Time is also relativistic.At 13:04 you may see the cat pur and at 13:05 hear the dog dark bark. A relativistic observer in another frame of references may see the dog bark first and then the cat pur. Or, maybe see them bark and pur simultaneously. (concept of relativistic simultaneity).

If God is non-temporal (unchanging), how does he perceive the situation?

(No… I don’t know how to reconcile this with the arrow of time or the fact that quantum observations appear to not observe time symmetry).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m sure you’re aware that intelligence has little to do with the mere accumulation of facts. Understanding (quite a different thing from recitation) and application of what is known are more related to intelligence.

I have great respect for both Aquinas and our physicists of late, but they deal with different matters entirely.

Linusthe2nd, Aquinas actually wasn’t writing about scientific origins. He was describing God as pure actuality and the created universe as a blend of potentiality and actuality.

If you mean that Thomas was not writing science, I agree. He presented an exhausting Corpus discussing, among other things, the metaphysical structure of all reality and the relationships which exist between God and his creation, especially man, God and the nature of God,etc.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I agree that the threads creator chose a topic which is technically oxymoronic.

However, I chose to simply read into it what was probably meant.

I would pose it something like this: “Can a universe common into being absent a ‘creator’ (i.e. the prime mover, aka God)?”

Of course, even this leaves questions like “what is a universe?”

Are you ever going to get over calling me names? Really ! There is nothing wrong with the question. Why in the world should I humor those who take all those wild speculations seriously. If you choose to do so that is your problem, but don’t call me names just because I can’t treat them seriously. I think they are nothing but " Science Fiction. "

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

First their argument is not “Universe have created itself”. Their argument is that universe has came out an quantum fluctuation which is a possibility in their picture. Please also read: hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html for further explanation. Unfortunately understanding of the technical details requires several years of study.

I see little difference. And of course what Hawking suggests is impossible. But it sells books, because people like good science fiction.

Linus2nd

 

[johnweeder]

God can NEVER be disproved. Why?

It depends on the assumptions. Here we are assuming the God defined by catholic dogma.

Disclaimer I am not saying God does not exist or I have proven him not to exist. I am saying that were I to find myself in certain situations, it would prove the catholic God does not exist. I have not said these situations actually exist.End Disclaimer

The simplest example is that if I found myself in a universe where God did not love me, then obviously the God of that universe could not be the catholic God.

So, there is at least one case where the catholic God’s existence could be disproven. Therefore, your assertion is false.

I grant you the argument has a tautological quality. It really breaks down to “If I define God as X and I find myself in a universe where God is NOT X, then I have proved God does not exist”.

This is the difference between a purely metaphysical debate and a debate including the physical. Here, I am able to test the assumptions of the metaphysical debate against the observations of the physical.

Make sense?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That’s what some physicists could call “nothing”. A particle can come to an existence from the vacuum energy and then annihilates.
Where there was no four dimensional particle (our spacetime) suddenly there is one.
The physicists are discovering “ex nihilo”.

Nonesense. Virtual particles have both wave and particle characteristics at different times, depending on conditions. They exist everywhere in space, they exist in this room. There is no such thing as " empty " space or of a vacuum without them.

In the laboratory you get what you are looking for ( if you are lucky ) because you have designed the optimal conditions. So a bunch of short waves appear. Big deal, you have set up the apparatus for them. They were in the vacuum all the time but you traped them by the apparatus. Nothing was created, nothing was even produced. The short waves collected in one place, the longer waves in another. Wonder of wonders.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

it depends

our universe could have been created by science

or God created it.

it is possible that there is a multiverse and our universe came from that universe so God didn’t directly create us.

But God created the cosmos the cosmos can’t create itself.

We hold by Catholic Faith that God created the universe and all it contains in time from nothing. Vatican 1.

Therefore, the universe was not created by science.
Therefore God created all that exists ( even multiverses, if such exist ) directly. According to St. Thomas ( S.T., Part 1, Ques 45, Art 5 ) no creature can create anything. Only God can create.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think people in this thread are talking about the same thing.

Physically speaking, it’s demonstrated that matter can come into existence from nothing, so long as corresponding antimatter does somewhere else in the universe at the same time. That doesn’t mean the universe can have created itself – because metaphysically, the principles which govern the universe had to have come from somewhere. We commonly call this first cause “God”.

Contrary to faith. Contrary to Divine Revelation. Contrary to reason. Nothing in the universe can create anything. Only God can create.

So even though Aquinas didn’t live to see all of the modern discoveries of physics, that changes nothing about what he wrote. His primary argument for the existence of God is based upon a necessary metaphysical causality; NOT that according to the scientific knowledge of his day, there can’t have been matter from nothing. He actually acknowledges the possibility that matter has always existed, since that is what was believed by Aristotle:

Yes matter could always have existed, but we know by Faith that it hasn’t. But even if matter had always existed, it would have had to have been eternally created - like the Second Person. Nothing in the universe can create any thing because it did not create itself. Only God, who is Pure Existence can create. Read the Summa Theologica that I referenced above ( S.T., Part 1, Ques 45, Art 5 )

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But the cat, whether dead or alive, is actually there. The information about whether or not it is dead or alive may not have taken a definite value, but the cat is still a thing that is there (though whether it is there in the form of a dead cat or an alive cat may not be accessible outside of its box).

If there are many worlds, and if there is a wave function that spans many worlds that has not caused certain matter to appear in ours, then this is the case of a thing (whatever it is the wave function describes - be it physical object, abstract system, whatever) that spans more than one world modifying how our world appears. This would not be he case of a thing creating itself. This would be the case of a system that’s already there that spans multiple worlds simply evolving in time.

“Nothing” is not the absence of matter and/or energy. If a thing can be talked about as having a real effect on anything, then it is not nothing. If a law can affect things, it is not nothing. If a quantum state is really there, then it (or whatever has that state) is not nothing, even if it hasn’t manifested matter right now and may later. If you can intelligently say that it effects something, then it is not nothing. If it can create, then it can effect things. So if it can create, it is not nothing.

To really speak about death meaningfully requires a spiritual approach, I think. But from a merely physical point of view, I think an inert body could count as death. And while it is possible that the world persists forever, all evidence suggests that this is not what will happen.

Thank you, a little reason at last.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus’s particular interpretation of a Aquinas is that creation only happened once, and that the actualization of potency does not involve the creation of something from nothing.

This is his pet theory. He will be every hurt if he finds out that he does not know Aquinas as well as he purports to. I think he would lose his sanity if he found out that Aquinas actually disagrees with him. So be easy on him okay?

I can see your personality hasn’t improved much, insulting as always.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Not sure if Krauss has ever heard of Feser. He’s an atheist, Feser isn’t, and they’re equally good at sneering, but Feser may just be jealous that he’s not in such demand as Krauss on the lecture circuit. (Perhaps because Feser only has 4 awards while Krauss has 14 major and umpteen other awards according to their CVs, for those who go in for authority figures.)

I’ve not read Krauss’ book either, but he does give an entertaining lecture of the same name if you can stand that it’s to an atheist audience with an intro by some guy named Richard Dawkins D), on YouTube here - youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0.

If you start viewing from 11 minutes in, Krauss gives an aside about Monsignor Lemaître, who first developed big bang theory, and Lemaître’s warning to Pope Pius XII not to regard his theory as proving Genesis (Pius had implied it does in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences).

Krauss’ lecture (and I think his book) explains recent discoveries in cosmology, including the interesting fact that the total energy across the universe appears to balance to exactly zero, hence the title A Universe From Nothing.

Thank you for the references but I’m not really interested in Kraus. Between Thomas and C.A. Forums and work at home, etc, and the limits imposed by age, I read only what will do me some good.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I would like to comment on the concept of “nothing” from the physical world perspective. As different from the metaphysical.

" Nohing " means the absence of any thing whatsoever - zero points included. We cannot allow certain physicists and cosmologists to redefine " nothing " so they can then make the outlandish claim that the universe created itself or that it is creating " stuff " now.
Truth is truth whether we are speaking of metaphysics or science.

It seems hard to say what nothing is. One may say there is a finite zero point energy so there is something! But, if so, one could also observe that this is merely our relative zero point… much like I add an arbitrary constant to the end of any indefinite integral.

Maybe nothingness may simply be relative and not absolute. If this universe reaches a state of maximum entropy, it does not matter what the absolute value is of the zero point is… no further work can be done even though particles may continue to move.

I personally think the physical world definition of “nothing” is much different from the “metaphysical” definition of it. In this sense, claim that quantum fluctuation give rise to particles out of nothingness is comparing apples/oranges when set against the claim that God created everything from nothing.

Nonsense, it is making an invalid metaphysical conclusion by the slight of hand of redefining whagt " nothing " means. Only a fool would fall for that, and there is no shortage of them in this generation.

However, I would say that maybe before we try to understand how God creates from the metaphysical nothing, perhaps we should see if we even understand how the universe creates from the physical nothing.

And there is a remark made by a man who wants to eat his cake and have it too. He doesn’t want to embarrass his collegues or friends and he doesn’t want to give up his Faith ( which I am glad to see), so he hedges his bets and puts one foot on each bank.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Every-moment that passes is an actualization of that which did not exist. The particular state of me sitting in a chair at 13:04 does not exist at 13.05, that is to say that my sitting in a chair at 13:05 was actualized from nothing since 13:05 did not exist at 13:04. The fact that i existed as sitting in a chair at 13:04 does not change the fact that my existing at 13:05 was actualized from nothing and was nothing at the time index of 13:04.

We are in a continuous state of becoming real