Hawking theory about something coming from nothing

[You]

This is an excellent argument. I make the same point in my book, but your presentation is more concise. If fact, if you don’t mind, I’d like to paraphrase your arguments and use them if I have time.

Nonetheless, there is the matter of your final paragraph. What is the basis for its statements?

Sure you can, use it, if you think its any help to you. The final paragraph is the place the late Pope John Paul II might have referred to as the place where you must cast off into the deep.
If there is nothing [read, - no material quality] then we are left with the only alternative, a non-material quality. From then on you must feel your own way; something was created from something which never existed before, it was created this way - not that way. This way that it is created reflects this in its creation… and so on.

 

[catholictiger]

Primary scources that Hawking ever said such a thing.

Your interpretation skills may be what needs to be examined here.

I’m not exactly sure who this is directed towards but my primary source is the discovery show curiosity

and he said on there that quantum physics shows us that on the subatomic level we see that protons create themselves just on a short time scale, so from that he assumed that the universe came from nothing.

curiosity.discovery.com/question/did-god-create-the-universe-videos

go to the 2nd to last video on this page and it will show you exactly what he said

I’ll let everyone interpret what he says on his own.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

is there anyone here who can actually explain how protons can create themselves out of nothing or where someone may come up with that idea. Its far beyond my basic understanding of the science.

.

His argument disproves the need for a physical God, a changing God that slowly designs the universe over a period of time. The universe does not require the kind of intelligent mechanistic cause we associate with a designer God; it doesn’t need a God that designs the universe. The universe didn’t need to be designed because it functions and evolves quite well according to its own laws. I don’t believe in a designer God. I believe in a God that provides and sustains the existential foundation of physical reality; but also allows it to evolve by itself according to laws that God put in place.

In a purely scientific context, saying that the universe came out of nothing physical, is not the same as saying that it is logically possible for the universe to come out of absolutely nothing. Scientists are not metaphysicians; and so you have to understand that when they make claims they represent something different from what people normally think. What scientists have observed is that some physical events are not preceded by a physical event. Some events just happen. But this is just a matter of fact statement and not a description of how it happened. You have to see this in context. Some scientists pleasure themselves with the fact that people are very much ignorant of the epistemological context in which science operates, and even some scientists themselves are ignorant. However, when scientists make a claim like this, no matter how much they would like it to be true, they cannot possibly mean that they have “physical evidence” that the universe is preceded by absolutely nothing; because absolutely nothing is not a measurable object. Science can not tell us whether or not physics is the only thing that exists, and thus any scientific statement suggesting otherwise would be immediately false. Nothingness is beyond scientific knowledge, and thus they cannot meaningfully invoke the concept as an object of scientific discussion or debate. When they do invoke the word, they are normally talking about a physical vacuum, they are talking about something which physically exists, or they are talking about the absence of physical existence. What they mean by nothing is always in reference to physical things, because that is the context in which science operates. Thus the metaphysical concept of nothing is not the same concept as the one which scientists speak about.

When they do speak about nothing in regards to the absolute beginning of the universe, with the exception of a few quacks, they are really saying that the universe came out of nothing physical; in other-words the event proceeded an absence of physical reality. Thus the scientific theories of to day, once understood properly, actually point to the existence of a non-physical cause.

The arguments of Aquinas only fail if they are presented in a scientific context. In reality the arguments are about having an efficient cause for the existence of something, which is very different from the scientific notion of causality. In other-words the underlying premise of the first three arguments is the idea that out of nothing comes nothing.

 

[Al_Moritz]

His argument disproves the need for a physical God, a changing God that slowly designs the universe over a period of time.

In that sense, there is no design needed, I agree. I do not believe in the designer of our particular solar system or of biological Intelligent Design.

The universe does not require the kind of intelligent mechanistic cause we associate with a designer God; it doesn’t need a God that designs the universe. The universe didn’t need to be designed because it functions and evolves quite well according to its own laws.

These laws do need to be designed. A universe in which, according to its own laws, any evolution towards physical and biological complexity can occur needs exceedingly special laws of nature, see the cosmological fine-tuning argument. That these laws are incredibly special is also acknowledged by atheistic cosmologists, hence their multiverse escape (which does not work, since a multiverse would have to be designed as well).

I don’t believe in a designer God. I believe in a God that provides and sustains the existential foundation of physical reality; but also allows it to evolve by itself according to laws that God put in place.

Well, but if you believe that God put these laws into place, you do believe in a designer God, a designer of these laws. It is just not a designer like the human artisan who just keeps on molding and changing, who keeps on tweaking and fixing.

 

[JDaniel]

With all due respect, the link does not go to a primary source but a hostile one.

Strawberry:

It, to my knowledge, is not a simple statement made. It is Hawking’s underlying presupposition, something that he may not be fully aware of, and I don’t know the man well enough to determine (as others have) that he may not realize what he is presupposing. But, very quickly, below is a paragraph from his/their new book, The Grand Design.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist….It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – The Grand Design (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010)

I bolded a salient sentence. If there is nothing whatsoever, how can there be gravity? Unless nothing isn’t nothing.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Primary sources that Hawking ever said such a thing.

Your interpretation skills may be what needs to be examined here.

Strawberry:

Should my interpretation skills need honing, please feel free to help me out. I have never said that I was in any way perfect, and you may be quite right. I consider you a compatriot, believe me, I will not be offended if you would be so kind as to correct me.

God bless and thank you,
jd

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn:

OK, I’ll give you that it looks like “0 except for 1.” But, really, it’s not. It’s zero physical, period. Spiritual is not physical. We believe that God did not make the universe out of a piece of Himself, so, in the absence of anything physical, there is nothing: no matter, no energy, no gravity, no fields, etc…

This argument takes us down a road we’ve traveled before. The study of physics is not limited to the study of matter, although that is how it began. After awhile physicists undertook the study of light and electricity, and discovered that these things were not matter, although they interacted with matter.

“Physical” now means, Matter, and that which interacts with matter, and which interacts with other non-material aspects of the physical universe which interact with matter and one another.

By the most simple, clear, and obvious reasoning, if God created matter, and if God can control the behavior of matter and any other component of the universe, then God is, by definition, a physical entity!

I realize that you are determined to maintain the confused definition of God set forth millennia ago by men who had no clue about physics, and so long as you persist in adhering to such dogmas, we cannot find agreement on these issues.

Nonetheless, you might take a moment to ask yourself this:
What if Christ had appeared in the late nineteenth century, and a new Church built upon his teachings began to form in the mid-20th century? Imagine that it became successful, and plans to schedule a conference in 2012 of its most educated followers, for the sole purpose of filling in the metaphysical blanks, answering questions like:

• What is the nature of God?
• What are the properties of God, and how does He fit into the physical universe we understand?
• Did God violate the energy conversation law by creating it?
• What was God’s purpose in creating the universe?
• Why did God create mankind?

Do you honestly believe that participants at this conference would come away with answers identical to those devised by Church fathers centuries ago?

I tend to disagree. Hawking’s newest work does not. Krauss’ writings do not. There are many people (some in these fora, in fact) that do not. I am happy, though, that you do.

You might also ask yourself why you agree with Hawking and Krauss, two determined atheists, and disagree with one of the few physics theorists promoting belief in creation? I suspect that your thoughts are determined by authority figures, and invite you to obtain some on your own behalf. You are capable. but it takes more courage to maintain independent thought than ability.

And that is precisely the problem: nothing is not an abstraction. Of the three orders of abstraction, the physical, the mathematical, and the metaphysical, nothing represents no speciation whatsoever. It is nothing, not nothingness. It is a bird, not bird-ness.

We will continue to disagree on this, because I insist upon simple definitions for simple things.

Greylorn, let’s remain polite, please. I have fairly adequately defined absolute nothing for you. It is odd that when such a definition is given, it is often quite ignored. Nothing still means, for many people, though perhaps disingenuous people, to refer to that which they cannot see.

No impoliteness was intended. While you have defined your version of the meaning of nothingness, I still prefer mine. Simplicity and clarity is important to me.

However, we are still left with the conundrum of extant stuff, perhaps having infinite existence.

Quoting Tonto’s reply to the Lone Ranger’s complaint, “We seem to be surrounded by Indians”— “What you mean ‘we,’ Kemosaby?”

I do not see that acceptance of the First Law of Thermodynamics and related principles is a “conundrum.” It certainly is not for me. Energy is a kind of raw substance which has always existed. God first used it to develop consciousness, then to use it as the “clay” from which He made the universe.

To me, this is clear, simple, and obvious in the context of basic physics principles.

However, it would be a serious conundrum for someone who insists that a non-physical God made the universe from nothing,

But, that, Sir, is not what you are saying. You are saying that He had some energy-stuff with which to work. So, which came first, the chicken or . . .?

The stuff from which the universe is made, energy, has always existed. The other stuff from which God, and ourselves is made, always existed.

I like it. Hope we can help. Is your book finished?

jd

(Didn’t expect that now, did you?)

I’ve learned to live without expectations, when dealing with individuals. You, for example, are an educated, principled religious dogmatist who is apparently certain of his beliefs, yet who occasionally engages in honest conversations with those who challenge your beliefs. You’ve manifested curiosity before, so I’d not be surprised if you accept the challenge of reading my book, just as you’ve engaged limited excerpts of my ideas. But would I expect that? Never! I like you best when your free will is active.

Yes, the book is finished. I’m now trying to get it printed. And I have been fortunate enough to obtain excellent editorial advice and new ideas from several CAF members.

All things considered, this is a first-rate forum, with space for contrary thought. I’ve learned much from its members, yourself included. Thank you,

 

[greylorn]

Sure you can, use it, if you think its any help to you. The final paragraph is the place the late Pope John Paul II might have referred to as the place where you must cast off into the deep.
If there is nothing [read, - no material quality] then we are left with the only alternative, a non-material quality. From then on you must feel your own way; something was created from something which never existed before, it was created this way - not that way. This way that it is created reflects this in its creation… and so on.

Your answer then amounts to saying, someone in the Church made it up. This is not satisfying.

It seems to me that, “something was created from something which never existed before,” is an obfuscation of the “…from nothing,” doctrine. This is so cumbersome.

Why not accept the physics principle that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and adopt the consequential opinion that God used it to make the universe, without needing to create it?

This would be an important step toward integrating theology and science.

 

[greylorn]

Strawberry:

It, to my knowledge, is not a simple statement made. It is Hawking’s underlying presupposition, something that he may not be fully aware of, and I don’t know the man well enough to determine (as others have) that he may not realize what he is presupposing. But, very quickly, below is a paragraph from his/their new book, The Grand Design.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist….It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – The Grand Design (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010)

I bolded a salient sentence. If there is nothing whatsoever, how can there be gravity? Unless nothing isn’t nothing.

God bless,
jd

JD,
Your comment is right on. Hawking seems to have gone dreadfully senile.

 

[You]

Your answer then amounts to saying, someone in the Church made it up. This is not satisfying.

It seems to me that, “something was created from something which never existed before,” is an obfuscation of the “…from nothing,” doctrine. This is so cumbersome.

Why not accept the physics principle that energy is neither created nor destroyed, and adopt the consequential opinion that God used it to make the universe, without needing to create it?

This would be an important step toward integrating theology and science.

Au contraire, greylorn. Even if the Church did not exist and I believed nothing I would still logically arrive at the same place. If you are saying that ‘energy’ always existed and God just used it then where was this energy before the BB. Energy, as part of the universe was created at the BB. Before the BB it was not there.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed by us humans in this universe, but it does not logically follow that God cannot create energy from nothing, or from His own thoughts.
I don’t think I like having God utterly subservient to matter and also its creator.

 

[kama3]

Hawking’s concept is not difficult, but it is counter-intuitive. Here is one summary: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html . The argument goes like this:

1. The vacuum (“nothing”) has random fluctuations at quantum level. This is allowed by Heisenberg’s uncertainity principle.
2. Quantum fluctuations can create a virtual particle-antiparticle pair out of nothing. Since such pair has a total energy of zero (it will annihilate) this does not violate conservation of energy. It does not matter how long the pair persists.
3. The consequence is that quantum fluctuation(s) of vacuum can make something out of nothing, as long it has a total energy of zero. In the same way, quantum fluctuations of vacuum can create universe’s initial singularity which leads to Big Bang – provided that the total energy of such universe is zero.
4. We observe that although energy of matter (E=mc^2) is positive, the potential energy of gravity is negative, and the two cancel each other out, i.e. the total energy of the universe is zero. This is consistent with the universe being a product of vacuum fluctuation. [There may be a problem here, because accelerating expasion of the universe implies existence of dark energy, which this argument does not take into account. It remains to be seen.]
5. Here is when it gets counterintuitive. The specific vacuum fluctuation which made our universe is not impossible (i.e. forbidden by laws of physics) only extremely improbable. However, if the initial vacuum is infinite in extent, then any event with non-zero probability must occur somewhere. Actually, the infinite extent will result not in creation of a single universe, but all possible universes, each in infinite number of copies! Welcome to the multiverse

So the short version is: laws of physics, operating on infinite vacuum, spontanously generate an universe ex nihilo.

The big question now is: where do these laws of physics come from?.

A theist will say that the laws were set by God.

An atheist will note that the laws apply everywhere in the observable universe, they applied at the moment of Big Bang, so it is reasonable to believe that they are universal and static. If so, they did not have origin, and the question is meaningless – they just exist.

 

[Kiwicatholic]

I noticed that this is a philosophical forum but most of the posts seem to be rather tending towards scientific nitty-gritty rather than really grabbing the problem from its philosophical root. To me it would seem important to look closely at what it is exactly that science can and cannot make claims about.

A philosophical critique can and must be made of modern empirical science. A clear understanding of the greatness but also the limits of science will help put Hawking’s claims in perspective. Indeed, all scientific claims need to be put in perspective.

I think that one of the strongest points that needs to be made about modern empirical science is that it simply cannot answer the question ‘what is it?’ For example: what is light? what is life? what is man? what is the universe? what is matter? Science can only offer partial descriptions about reality. This is because science relies on what Aristotle calls the “common sensibles”, science builds up an image of reality, science characterises reality by measurement. Because of this it is not actually an adequate tool for grasping what reality is in and of itself. Philosophy (at least realist philosophy) can answer the question ‘what is it’ because it doesn’t abstract itself from reality, it adheres to it and makes qualitative judgements that have their foundations in the “proper sensibles”.

A response to Hawkings that stays at the level of debating scientific theory will not enable us to fully respond. We need to be able to see the place the science has in man’s quest for wisdom and its limits. Whenever Hawkings makes claims about God or ultimate realities in the universe, he is actually stepping outside of sciense, where he is a giant, and into another realm where he is making himself a fool.

 

[tonyrey]

I noticed that this is a philosophical forum but most of the posts seem to be rather tending towards scientific nitty-gritty rather than really grabbing the problem from its philosophical root. To me it would seem important to look closely at what it is exactly that science can and cannot make claims about.

A philosophical critique can and must be made of modern empirical science. A clear understanding of the greatness but also the limits of science will help put Hawking’s claims in perspective. Indeed, all scientific claims need to be put in perspective.

I think that one of the strongest points that needs to be made about modern empirical science is that it simply cannot answer the question ‘what is it?’ For example: what is light? what is life? what is man? what is the universe? what is matter? Science can only offer partial descriptions about reality. This is because science relies on what Aristotle calls the “common sensibles”, science builds up an image of reality, science characterises reality by measurement. Because of this it is not actually an adequate tool for grasping what reality is in and of itself. Philosophy (at least realist philosophy) can answer the question ‘what is it’ because it doesn’t abstract itself from reality, it adheres to it and makes qualitative judgements that have their foundations in the “proper sensibles”.

A response to Hawkings that stays at the level of debating scientific theory will not enable us to fully respond. We need to be able to see the place the science has in man’s quest for wisdom and its limits. Whenever Hawkings makes claims about God or ultimate realities in the universe, he is actually stepping outside of science, where he is a giant, and into another realm where he is making himself a fool.

A very warm welcome to the forum, Kiwi! :tiphat:

Although W.V.Quine was an eminent philosopher he believed:

“…nothing happens in the world, not the flutter of the eyelid, not the flicker of a thought, without some redistribution of microphysical states.”

iep.utm.edu/quine-sc/#H7

Like Hawking he fails to realise that scientism is self-destructive. If thoughts - and thinkers - are due to redistributions of microphysical states how can they explain themselves?!

 

[greylorn]

Au contraire, greylorn. Even if the Church did not exist and I believed nothing I would still logically arrive at the same place. If you are saying that ‘energy’ always existed and God just used it then where was this energy before the BB. Energy, as part of the universe was created at the BB. Before the BB it was not there.
Energy is neither created nor destroyed by us humans in this universe, but it does not logically follow that God cannot create energy from nothing, or from His own thoughts.
I don’t think I like having God utterly subservient to matter and also its creator.

My core hypotheses differ greatly from those of conventional science, and from yours, of course.

I do not accept the reality of the Big Bang. The weak evidence for it can be explained otherwise. The idea of creating something in an explosion is absurd. Moreover, the math doesn’t work without fudge factors, and the question, “What made it explode?” is not answered.

The notion of a God “subservient to matter,” is yours, not mine. I would never make such a goofy statement, and do not appreciate your suggestion that I did so.

The energy conservation law does not include the caveat, “by humans.” It is unequivocal.

I apologize for engaging in this conversation. I’d not realized the extent of your adherence to doctrine. No point continuing.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Hawking’s concept is not difficult, but it is counter-intuitive. Here is one summary: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html . The argument goes like this:

1. The vacuum (“nothing”) has random fluctuations at quantum level. This is allowed by Heisenberg’s uncertainity principle.

…]

1. The consequence is that quantum fluctuation(s) of vacuum can make something out of nothing, as long it has a total energy of zero. In the same way, quantum fluctuations of vacuum can create universe’s initial singularity which leads to Big Bang – provided that the total energy of such universe is zero.

Note how you go from “nothing” in paragraph 1 to nothing without quotation marks in paragraph 3. That is how analytically sloppy reasoning begins.

1. Here is when it gets counterintuitive. The specific vacuum fluctuation which made our universe is not impossible (i.e. forbidden by laws of physics) only extremely improbable.

Pure speculation. As eminent cosmologist George Ellis points out, going from mere particles to entire universes in this scenario is not based on known laws of physics, but on extreme speculative extrapolation from known laws of physics that has no experimental, observational support whatsoever.

1. Quantum fluctuations can create a virtual particle-antiparticle pair out of nothing. Since such pair has a total energy of zero (it will annihilate) this does not violate conservation of energy. It does not matter how long the pair persists.

(Emphasis added.)

Yes, but going from the experimentally observed duration of fractions of a microsecond of a virtual particle-antiparticle pair to billions of years duration of an entire universe is pure speculation.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The energy conservation law does not include the caveat, “by humans.” It is unequivocal.

I apologize for engaging in this conversation. I’d not realized the extent of your adherence to doctrine. No point continuing.

Your adherence to the doctrine that the energy conservation law holds absolutely, i.e. that energy was never created and could not have been, is amazing indeed. This idea is not based on scientific observation – sciernce can only describe laws, but cannot establish where they came from – but is purely based on speculation.

 

[Reivax]

The cosmological argument for God has never really been much of an argument. To say everything must have a cause is a fair statement. But to say that God was the first cause is paradoxical to this reasoning in the first place. Because it would follow that God must require a cause. Most people answer this by the ‘uncaused cause’ explanation, which is simply the fallacy of special pleading.

By this same logic, you could just as easily conclude that the universe is an uncaused cause, attributing it the same properties as God. Essentially all the cosmological argument does is creates an unnecessary entity.

The fact is, we don’t know how something can come from nothing, but this does not mean that God must exist.

I say this simply to highlight the fact that God is illogical, I leave you with the following quote from William of Ockham:

“only faith gives us access to theological truths. The ways of God are not open to reason, for God has freely chosen to create a world and establish a way of salvation within it apart from any necessary laws that human logic or rationality can uncover."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham

 

[tonyrey]

A very warm welcome to the forum, Kiwi! :tiphat:

Although W.V.Quine was an eminent philosopher he believed:

“…nothing happens in the world, not the flutter of the eyelid, not the flicker of a thought, without some redistribution of microphysical states.”

iep.utm.edu/quine-sc/#H7

Like Hawking he fails to realise that scientism is self-destructive. If thoughts - and thinkers - are due to redistributions of microphysical states how can they explain themselves?!

Of course it doesn’t follow that thoughts are **caused **by microphysical states even though they are **related **to them but Quine was a physicalist despite his concession that physical objects are mental constructs…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

An atheist will note that the laws apply everywhere in the observable universe, they applied at the moment of Big Bang, so it is reasonable to believe that they are universal and static. If so, they did not have origin, and the question is meaningless – they just exist.

1. If you believe all is physical, then you must also agree that physical law has no meaning out side of the actual behavior and existence of physical things.
2. If the actuality of physical law is by definition a necessary being, this means that universal physical truth cannot be something that begins to exist or evolves into existence; this is to say it cannot be something which becomes true, because it is aways true.
3. Universal laws cannot be by definition finite, for the universality of its truth transcends any finite instant of its physical expression. Therefore the physical expression of such laws have to be universally actual and timeless; since physical laws do not transcend the actuality of physical behavior. Thus the universe should also be static.
4. However, If you also believe that physical reality had a beginning, that it is changing, it is equally meaningless and contradictory to say that the laws of physics are responsible for its existence; for actual physical reality is its laws of behavior.
5. Its not difficult to see that from this premise alone, physical laws are only as real as the existence of physical things and the actuality of their expressions; because the two are synonymous.
6. Which means if any physical thing comes into existence, evolves into reality, it follows that the nature of its behavior (its laws) are contingent and not necessary.
7. If physical laws are not necessary, which is true if physical reality had an absolute beginning, then it follows that its cause is not physical.

Conclusion: from this point on, you can either choose to give up rational discourse and say that the universe came out of nothing. Or you can admit that the only rational conclusion is the fact that physical reality is created by something non-physical.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The fact is, we don’t know how something can come from nothing

…God is illogical

?