Laws of Physics come from nothing

[AnAtheist]

Atreyu:

I see no contradiction with this statement and the existence of God.

Of course not.
It only contradicts, that the laws must be created or imposed by a god. Nothing more.
So the existence of natural laws does not contradict the non-existence of gods.

 

[Liberian]

AnAtheist:

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.

An Atheist,

Sorry, that link didn’t work either.

Based on what I have read here, it sounds like all that has been done is to find a more basic unity in the laws of physics. In much the same way that electricity and magnetism were unified into Maxwell’s equations, this assumption of symmetry unifies whatever phenomena it unifies. So now all we have to do to derive the laws of physics, apparently, is to assume a symmetrical reality without any absolute reference frames whatsoever. This doesn’t really change anything.

• Liberian

 

[AnAtheist]

Liberian:

Based on what I have read here, it sounds like all that has been done is to find a more basic unity in the laws of physics. In much the same way that electricity and magnetism were unified into Maxwell’s equations, this assumption of symmetry unifies whatever phenomena it unifies. So now all we have to do to derive the laws of physics, apparently, is to assume a symmetrical reality without any absolute reference frames whatsoever. This doesn’t really change anything.

I disagree. First this is of a different qualitiy than an unification of forces, which basically derives all forces from a single base force. Here the laws are inherent to a very simply principle.
Second, that changes one thing. A different set of natural laws might not be possible, even in a different universe.

 

[David_Brown]

Liberian:

An Atheist,

Sorry, that link didn’t work either.

• Liberian

Try using the one on post #5. I just tried it and it worked.

David

 

[mike182d]

AnAtheist:

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.

It was my understanding that the laws of physics are not infinitely constant and in fact were different at the point of singularity.

However, as I am not a physicist, I’m not sure how much has changed about our understanding of the universe in the past couple years.

 

[JimG]

AnAtheist:

A different set of natural laws might not be possible, even in a different universe.

So the laws of nature that we encounter through physical inquiry are actually a matter of necessity?

In that case the concepts of a multiplicity of universes with possibly varying natural laws would then be impossible. There might be a multiplicity of universes, but they would all have to have the same natural laws.

So, a non-theist or agnostic might say: If there is a God, He created the universe using these natural laws because he had to. There were no other alternatives.

Or he might say: what is see is actually a matter of necessity. It could not be otherwise, nor could it not have been. (This would be an argument against the Christian argument from contingency.)

And a theist might interpret it this way: God did create a universe with these characteristics–i.e. this set of natural laws–because those laws are the underlying basic form of material reality.

One might end up saying, that just as God can not create a square circle because it is a contradiction in terms, He cannot create a universe with different natural laws than what we see because that would also be a contradiction in terms.

Just thinking out loud here. . . .

 

[st.jerome]

AnAtheist:

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.

Could we have a reasonable definition of total Nothingness? I don’t mean to be flippant but I have not yet seen an adequate definition for this. Couldn’t a depiction of absolutely EVERYTHING be just as symmetric as absolutely NOTHING?

 

[Maranatha]

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.

So this doesn’t raid to the level of a proof just, It’s just an argument.

 

[bengeorge]

JimG:

Just thinking out loud here. . . .

Well put JimG.

So, my question is, explaination for the source of the Laws aside, where did the Stuff come from?

 

[JimG]

bengeorge:

Well put JimG.

So, my question is, explaination for the source of the Laws aside, where did the Stuff come from?

Well, that’s my point as a theist. I think that the stuff–any stuff that we know of–including nothingness–does not contain within its own nature sufficient reason for its own existence. It doesn’t have to be. God is the only being whose essence IS his existence.

But that’s not necessarily going to be convincing to a non-theist.

As for the nature of nothing, I distinguish between physical nothingness and non-existence. We think of empty space as nothing, but it really has a structure. (Someone has even proposed a structure for space-time below the planck length and the planck time, which was always assumed to be chaotic, or at least that was my understanding.)

But non-existence was the condition before creation.