Laws of Physics come from nothing

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnAtheist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think I missed it. Since it was a powerpoint presentation it lacked something of the rigor of an essay (and lacked references and a clear logical structure which made it even harder to follow). I am not a scientist, and wasn’t in the room to hear the explanations, so perhaps it went over my head.

After a bunch of definitions and pictures we get the conclusion: “Where did the symmetries come from? They are exactly the symmetries of the void. The laws of physics are just what they would be expected to be if they came from nothing.” The discussion if symmetires of the void says: “No absolute position, time, velocity, or acceleration in the void. ‘Nothing’ is perfectly symmetrical.” Ok. So what?

(1) I don’t see how the conclusion follows from what was said above. This question seems to be the first time the slides went outside science to philosophy. The previous slides were mostly definitions that didn’t seem directed toward a single conclusion (which I am sure was given during the slide show). I am not so good at science but I know something about arguments and this didn’t seem to qualify.

(2) The question of where the symmetries came from might have other answers. If, and this is a big assumption, the laws are predicted by the symmetries of the void (which itself needs more than a powerpoint slide), then all that is established is a sufficient cause. There can be any number of other sufficient causes, so the theist can step in with a counter-explanation. Wouldn’t they also need to show that it is a necessary cause (and excludes any possible theistic interpretation)?

It looked interesting as far as giving scientific definitions.

Have you read Stuart Kaufman’s stuff on self-organization?

David
 
David Brown:
I think I missed it. Since it was a powerpoint presentation it lacked something of the rigor of an essay (and lacked references and a clear logical structure which made it even harder to follow). I am not a scientist, and wasn’t in the room to hear the explanations, so perhaps it went over my head.
Click to expand...
You’re right. It is very condensed. Otoh that gives a short and sharp overlook on the issue.
So what?
Click to expand...
The point is, that the laws of physics are not something out of the world, they are naturally what you’d expect, if you postulate a perfectly symmetrical world. And there is nothing more symmetrical than nothing. So the observable laws of physics comply with total Nothingness. And that’s amazing (! ), quite contrary to what was believed for centuries, even by scientists.

That shows, that an *external *source for those laws is not necessary. That deprives a great deal
of “proofs for God” of their premises.
Have you read Stuart Kaufman’s stuff on self-organization?
Click to expand...
I have read some stuff on self-organisation, but I can’t remember that particular name. What exactly do you have in mind?
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
You’re right. It is very condensed. Otoh that gives a short and sharp overlook on the issue.

The point is, that the laws of physics are not something out of the world, they are naturally what you’d expect, if you postulate a perfectly symmetrical world. And there is nothing more symmetrical than nothing. So the observable laws of physics comply with total Nothingness. And that’s amazing (! ), quite contrary to what was believed for centuries, even by scientists.

That shows, that an *external *source for those laws is not necessary. That deprives a great deal
of “proofs for God” of their premises.

I have read some stuff on self-organisation, but I can’t remember that particular name. What exactly do you have in mind?
Click to expand...
You don’t see the contradiction of something complying with “Total Nothingness”? Which is it: no-thing or some-thing?
 
The question I have is all the laws of physics? Or just the ones we have observed and understand.
 
If I get this right the argument goes:
  1. The laws of physics display perfect symmetry
  2. Nothingness also displays perfect symmetry
  3. Therefore the laws of physics have come form nothing.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
You’re right. It is very condensed. Otoh that gives a short and sharp overlook on the issue.

The point is, that the laws of physics are not something out of the world, they are naturally what you’d expect, if you postulate a perfectly symmetrical world. And there is nothing more symmetrical than nothing. So the observable laws of physics comply with total Nothingness. And that’s amazing (! ), quite contrary to what was believed for centuries, even by scientists.

That shows, that an *external *source for those laws is not necessary. That deprives a great deal
of “proofs for God” of their premises.

I have read some stuff on self-organisation, but I can’t remember that particular name. What exactly do you have in mind?
Click to expand...
I found his “book” on the Colorado site and put the link in my previous post. It was fairly interesting (for a brief skim).

When you say: “The point is, that the laws of physics are not something out of the world,” I am not sure what you think you are objecting to. Every theistic account I have read (I did a lot of work in philosophy of religion as an undergraduate and graduate student) recognizes the laws are “in” the world, they (usually) just claim that they have a theistic reason for being in the world. Postulating a “perfectly symmetrical world” also doesn’t seem to weigh against the idea of God, in fact it seems perfectly in line with the claim that God “hast arranged all things by measure and number and weight” (Wisdom 11:20, a favorite passage of medieval philosophers in looking at the world).

You mentioned “total nothingness.” Did the author maintain that? When he spoke of the void in Chapter 9, page 25, he said:I have defined the void as what you get when you remove all the matter and energy. No physical quantities are measurable in the void. The void does not kick back when you kick it. If this void is not “nothing,” then I do not know what is. But if the void is unstable, then we have “something” existing as another phase or state of nothing, the way ice and steam are different phases of water. I took that as something less than absolute or total.

I mentioned Kaufman because it sounded a little like what you were talking about. I didn’t know if you had read him or not. If you had I was going to ask some questions, since I have only a brief reading of him.

It doesn’t really deprive any proof of any premise. It only provides a possible alternative–in a sense it might deprive a premise of certainty. There are still, for example, arguments to the best explanation that can be made in defense of one premise or another.

A scientifically sophisticated theist can argue that granting “symmetry” smuggles in structure that either begs the question (and so they would deny the postulate) or raises new questions that have or require theistic answers–they may argue that symmetry fits the theistic position and may require it, for example. I am not a scientifically sophisticated theist but I can see the possible line of argument. It would be a fun debate to watch.

Thanks for the stimulating discussion.

David
 
David Brown:
When you say: “The point is, that the laws of physics are not something out of the world,” I am not sure what you think you are objecting to.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I wasn’t precise enough. I meant the laws need not to be imposed from outside the universe. Or have to be laid out “before” or separately of the universe. They are an intrinsic feature of the universe, following automatically from perfect symmetry.
 
40.png
Maranatha:
If I get this right the argument goes:
  1. The laws of physics display perfect symmetry
  2. Nothingness also displays perfect symmetry
  3. Therefore the laws of physics have come form nothing.
Click to expand...
I am sorry if I have implied that, which is rubbish of course.

What I meant is:
  1. Nothingness also displays perfect symmetry
  2. The laws of physics must be as they are observable with perfect symmetry.
  3. Therefore the laws of physics **can **have come form nothing.
  4. An **external **source of the laws is not necessary.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
The point is, that the laws of physics are not something out of the world
Click to expand...
You’re right. In fact, laws of physics aren’t even things at all; they are not tangible entities in and of themselves. Rather, they are perceived, constant, effects - mathmatical and scientific constants are not causal agents but rather abstract concepts designed by humans to better understand the order existent in the world.

If a “law” of nature isn’t a thing in and of itself - but rather an effect - what is its cause?
 
I got the impression that “nothingness” in the context used by the author meant “empty space,” but I’m not sure.

In any case, “nothing” when used by a physicist means something different than “nothing” when used by a philosopher such as Mortimer Adler. In the philosophical sense, nothingness is non-existence; while in the physical sense, it is perfectly acceptable for a particle-antiparticle pair to arise spontaneously out of ‘nothing’. But in that case, the ‘nothing’ is really empty space devoid of matter. Empty space itself is not nothing.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
I am sorry if I have implied that, which is rubbish of course.

What I meant is:
  1. Nothingness also displays perfect symmetry
  2. The laws of physics must be as they are observable with perfect symmetry.
  3. Therefore the laws of physics **can **have come form nothing.
  4. An **external **source of the laws is not necessary.
Click to expand...
Why is there a universe instead of nothing?
 
From a philosophical point of view, the question is not whether the laws of physics require an external source. The question is whether the existence of anything at all requires an external source. Does any material entity (or non-material entity, for that matter) contain within itself sufficient reason for its existence? Might it just as well not have existed?
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
Sorry, I wasn’t precise enough. I meant the laws need not to be imposed from outside the universe. Or have to be laid out “before” or separately of the universe. They are an intrinsic feature of the universe, following automatically from perfect symmetry.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I easily get confused. You didn’t seem to be a person who would resort to a “straw man.”

David
 
40.png
JimG:
I got the impression that “nothingness” in the context used by the author meant “empty space,” but I’m not sure.

In any case, “nothing” when used by a physicist means something different than “nothing” when used by a philosopher such as Mortimer Adler. In the philosophical sense, nothingness is non-existence; while in the physical sense, it is perfectly acceptable for a particle-antiparticle pair to arise spontaneously out of ‘nothing’. But in that case, the ‘nothing’ is really empty space devoid of matter. Empty space itself is not nothing.
Click to expand...
I got the same impression. Historically, scientists have only gotten in to trouble when they try to project their proven theories the physical to the philosophical. Each time they have fallen short.

Heliocentrism is true, therefore God may not exist
Evolution is true, therefore God may not exist
Now, nothingness is symmetrical, therefore God may not exist.
 
40.png
AnAtheist:
Very interesting philosophical stuff for all who claim, that nothing comes from nothing:

colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/Law.ppt

(PowerPoint-presentation)
Click to expand...
An Atheist,

1.9 megabytes is a bit much for my poor 56K modem on a noisy line. Can you summarize it please?

And I always thought that the “laws of physics” were the condensation of the results of an uncounted number of experiments conducted over the centuries. What is this fellow trying to say?
  • Liberian
 
I am a physicist, and so I followed all of the physics in the presentation quite well, and mostly it was correct and relatively complete. However, I think that the conclusions were drawn without sufficient premise. I don’t know if I’m putting this correctly, I mean I followed all of the physics just fine, but I didn’t agree with the conclusions drawn, but I guess I’d have to think about it quite a bit to try and see how he got that conclusion… However, I think it’s just fine that the laws of physics are not imposed on the universe from outside the universe. I see no contradiction with this statement and the existence of God.
 
40.png
mike182d:
You’re right. In fact, laws of physics aren’t even things at all; they are not tangible entities in and of themselves.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but in discussions often the question is raised “And where did the laws of nature come from?”. This shows that the laws itself must (automatically) be as they are, if we assume a very simple premise, i.e. a symmetrical reality.
 
40.png
Liberian:
An Atheist,

1.9 megabytes is a bit much for my poor 56K modem on a noisy line. Can you summarize it please?

And I always thought that the “laws of physics” were the condensation of the results of an uncounted number of experiments conducted over the centuries. What is this fellow trying to say?
  • Liberian
Click to expand...
Perhaps the link David digged out (colorado.edu/philosophy/…er/nothing.html) helps you.

In short it says, the laws of physics do not need to be established, created, imposed etc. They automatically are how they are if we assume a symmetrical reality without any absolute reference frames whatsoever, i.e. everyone everywhere perceives the universe the same way. Which would not be the case e.g., if there was an absolute space-time as proposed by classic physics (Newton, Galilei).
“Nothing” btw has the same symmetry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top