Creation from nothing?

[ribozyme]

Does anyone have any critiques of cosmologies that involve a creation from nothing such as the Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal, or Vilenkin’s quantum creation model?

I only know of a few situations were creation from nothing can occur such as a capitalist exploiting his workers for surplus value:

During the second period of the labour-process, that in which his labour is no longer necessary labour, the workman, it is true, labours, expends labour-power; but his labour, being no longer necessary labour, he creates no value for himself. **He creates surplus-value which, for the capitalist, has all the charms of a creation out of nothing. **This portion of the working-day, I name surplus labour-time, and to the labour expended during that time, I give the name of surplus-labour. It is every bit as important, for a correct understanding of surplus-value, to conceive it as a mere congelation of surplus labour-time, as nothing but materialised surplus-labour, as it is, for a proper comprehension of value, to conceive it as a mere congelation of so many hours of labour, as nothing but materialised labour. The essential difference between the various economic forms of society, between, for instance, a society based on slave-labour, and one based on wage-labour, lies only in the mode in which this surplus-labour is in each case extracted from the actual producer, the labourer.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch09.htm

 

[Catholig]

What is this thread about again? Are you a marxist?

Catholig

 

[ribozyme]

I was wonder how you anyone who was using the first-cause argument counteract some cosmologies that propose creation from nothing. Guth (look at my sig) believes the universe is the “ultimate free lunch”.

I hope the Marxism quote drove the point home. Personally, I hope that the exploitation of workers for surplus value would stop. It destroys jobs in America, and it is the attitude that leads to using sweatshop labor. I am not a Marxist, but I do agree with Marx about surplus value.

 

[Rebecca_New]

I believe that God is in charge of my life-mainly because I have asked him to be. I am paid hourly, and with the Graces from God I make a difference in the world because of that. Me alone would be a slave to work and the hourly wage-with probably shotty work produced at that. No one creates from nothing but God. Man can think he is creating and using, and prospering, but it will all go as quickly as it was attained. This is what life would be like if Jesus had not come into the world. I think this was my Christmas lesson. Thank you, sweet Jesus, for your saving Grace.

 

[Ghosty]

Does anyone have any critiques of cosmologies that involve a creation from nothing such as the Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal, or Vilenkin’s quantum creation model?

I only know of a few situations were creation from nothing can occur such as a capitalist exploiting his workers for surplus value:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch09.htm

There are no true explainations of “creation from nothing” from a purely scientific perspective. Even Hawking’s theory requires that the “void” have a certain formula of acting, and that by definition is something rather than nothing.

The economic theories are spurious because they don’t deal in real objects. Wealth and value are arbitrary figures, and even so they are derived from pre-existing elements in that they require a person to possess them and give them any meaning.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There are no true explainations of “creation from nothing” from a purely scientific perspective. Even Hawking’s theory requires that the “void” have a certain formula of acting, and that by definition is something rather than nothing.

++ The reason being, that they arw within the set of phenomena which they seek to explain - but the explanation of the phenomena can come only from beyond those phenomena; not from within it.

One cannot answer metaquestions except as metaquestions - explanations for phenomena, are metaphenomenal, not intra/interphenomenal.

The economic theories are spurious because they don’t deal in real objects. Wealth and value are arbitrary figures, and even so they are derived from pre-existing elements in that they require a person to possess them and give them any meaning.

Peace and God bless!

 

[masterjedi747]

Does anyone have any critiques of cosmologies that involve a creation from nothing such as the Hawking-Hartle no boundary proposal, or Vilenkin’s quantum creation model?

It depends on what you mean by “from nothing”.
If you mean space/time/matter/energy being created where there was none before, then no.
But if you mean space/time/matter/energy being created without a cause, then yes. Everything that had a beginning was necessarily caused by something. Nothing is not something; therefore nothingness cannot cause something to exist. And a thing cannot cause itself to exist.

 

[VociMike]

There are no true explainations of “creation from nothing” from a purely scientific perspective. Even Hawking’s theory requires that the “void” have a certain formula of acting, and that by definition is something rather than nothing.

This is the key. Laws of nature that allow for “creation from nothing” have to first exist. Existence is not nothing. So “creation from nothing” is nothing of the sort.

 

[Ghosty]

This is the key. Laws of nature that allow for “creation from nothing” have to first exist. Existence is not nothing. So “creation from nothing” is nothing of the sort.

Exactly, and it bothers me immensely that such brilliant men as Hawkings don’t realize this fundamental principle of logic. I used to have such respect for such people, and still do as far as their computational ability goes in their fields of expertise, but my understanding of such “intellectual luminaries” has changed drastically.

Peace and God bless!

 

[steveandersen]

…I only know of a few situations were creation from nothing can occur such as a capitalist exploiting his workers for surplus value…

I don’t think that this is an apt analogy
While surplus production may exceed what an individual worker needs (which is kind of the point of specialization of labor and large scale production in the first place) it still requires raw materials, labor, and capital; hardly creation form nothing.

As for the creation cosmologies cited, I’m not really conversant in them. I don’t have a problem with what little I do know.

 

[ribozyme]

I don’t think that this is an apt analogy
While surplus production may exceed what an individual worker needs (which is kind of the point of specialization of labor and large scale production in the first place) it still requires raw materials, labor, and capital; hardly creation form nothing.

As for the creation cosmologies cited, I’m not really conversant in them. I don’t have a problem with what little I do know.

I know it is not an apt anaology as a work has to expend labor power, but for the capitalist, it has all the charms of creation from nothing.

 

[steveandersen]

I know it is not an apt anaology as a work has to expend labor power, but for the capitalist, it has all the charms of creation from nothing.

Well not to get OT but as I said capital and raw materials still have to be supplied.

Sure your margin is increased but there are still costs associated with it.

 

[ribozyme]

Well not to get OT but as I said capital and raw materials still have to be supplied.

Sure your margin is increased but there are still costs associated with it.

Sorry for the confusion, I meant to say that a worker has to expend labor power, so it is not free for the worker. I accidently wrote “work” when I meant “worker”.

 

[dafalax]

Well I think that the physicist is acting on the assumtion that the first cause argument true, its just that they think the first cause is some law of nature or some kind of flux instead of God. They believe that there was no creation from nothing even if it was God who created because that would be creation from God, which is something. They eventually end up trying to convince us that their idea of what caused the universe is just as good and reasonable as the God hypothesis, but to quote an earlier poster the universe would definately have to have had a non-physical cause to be created from true nothing, no space/matter/time/energy the only cause that fits the bill is God. Any explanation based on something physical i.e. a law of nature, would not be true creation from nothing.
Thanks! this has been truly enlightening.