Nothingness and the rise of something

[glowingembers]

I have recently read a few articles by physicist Victor Stenger and about his book The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? and it seems he has a fascinating answer to the ancient question of “Why is there something rather than nothing?”.

Stenger equates nothingness with a state of perfect symmetry. One might object that nothingness cannot have a property but it seems that the property of perfect symmetry is simply the same as absence of all things: no thing can exist in the state of perfect symmetry because the thing would be differentiated from the rest of reality and thus would break the perfect symmetry. This state of nothingness has no measurable matter/energy, space or time.

Interestingly though, it seems that from the property of perfect symmetry result all laws of physics - conservation laws, general relativity, quantum mechanics. The mathematics behind this monumental claim is beyond me. But it was already shown a century ago by Emmy Noether that conservation laws such as conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum are the result of invariance of physical laws with respect to translation in time, translation in space and direction in space, respectively. That is, no point in time or space or direction in space is special. Now Stenger shows that other, more abstract symmetries are the source of other laws of physics. Including the source of quantum mechanical laws, which enable the state of nothingness (perfect symmetry) to transform randomly into the state of thingness (broken symmetry) with measurable space, time and matter/energy. In one article Stenger calculates that the probability of moving from nothingness to thingness is 68.7%! So nothingness is unstable and can turn into something. Nothingness contains, inherently and necessarily, the possibility to turn spontaneously into something. The problem is that I can’t imagine how this can be done and I don’t understand the quantum-mechanical mathematics behind it. If there is somebody who understands this and can explain it or at least give an idea to the layperson, I would be very interested.

Here are some links I got these ideas from:

www.csicop.org/sb/2006-06/reality-check.html

colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html

colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf

 

[reggieM]

In ordinary philosophical terms, nothingness could not turn into something because it would need to possess something first. Nothingness cannot confer existence on anything because it doesn’t possess existence first.

 

[tonyrey]

Stenger equates nothingness with a state of perfect symmetry. One might object that nothingness cannot have a property but it seems that the property of perfect symmetry is simply the same as absence of all things: no thing can exist in the state of perfect symmetry because the thing would be differentiated from the rest of reality and thus would break the perfect symmetry. This state of nothingness has no measurable matter/energy, space or time.

“the property of perfect symmetry is simply the same as absence of all things”.
This is the one of the most absurd statements I have ever read! If one doubts the possibility of perfect symmetry it is more reasonable just to deny it exists rather than equate it with the absence of everything.

The problem is that the more absurd a statement is the more difficult it is to falsify. How would you deal with “Everything is the cause of nothing”?

No wonder metaphysics has fallen into disrepute. uch:

 

[reggieM]

Nothingness contains, inherently and necessarily, the possibility to turn spontaneously into something.

If nothingness contains something, then it is not nothingness.

 

[edwest2]

In order for nothing to become imbalanced, something external would have to act on it. As it is, nothing is literally nothing. Symmetry has no meaning where nothing is available to be manipulated or identified.

I could use my hands to show the outline of a bottle in thin air and do it with perfect symmetry but I have made nothing.

This is another attempt to spontaneously create something out of nothing and attribute it to ‘natural’ forces. (!)

It reminds me of the movie set in some ancient city where an empty cart has a sign that reads: Nothing 5 cents.

Peace,
Ed

 

[geometer]

A sphere has perfect symmetry, as far as I understand the term symmetry. Of course a perfect sphere is an abstract object. I suppose it would qualify as nothing.

Its definition is the simplest of all geometric objects.

“All points equidistant from a given point.”

In zero dimensions this is a single point, in two dimensions a circle, in three a spherical surface, and four a hypersphere, etc…

Whatever the physicists are discussing, it may that it is is to be found at one of the limits.

Perhaps it would be a sphere of infinite dimensions or possibly zero dimensions.

 

[glowingembers]

If nothingness contains something, then it is not nothingness.

It seems that Stenger starts from the premise of absence of all things (perfect symmetry) and comes to the conclusion of presence of things (a possibility of change, instability). If his reasoning is correct, then nothingness as the absence of all things is a self-contradicting term like a “round cube”.

 

[reggieM]

It seems that Stenger starts from the premise of absence of all things (perfect symmetry) and comes to the conclusion of presence of things (a possibility of change, instability). If his reasoning is correct, then nothingness as the absence of all things is a self-contradicting term like a “round cube”.

Symmetry requires a relationship between things.

Stenger is the author of this book:

God, the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

 

[Sarpedon]

Does he posit a reason for perfect symmetry to change into broken symmetry?

 

[Sarpedon]

It seems that Stenger starts from the premise of absence of all things (perfect symmetry) and comes to the conclusion of presence of things (a possibility of change, instability). If his reasoning is correct, then nothingness as the absence of all things is a self-contradicting term like a “round cube”.

If existent things have the possibility of change or instability, on what basis does he place stock in the reasoning of our human minds?

Suppose he is correct in that broken symmetry cannot logically arise from perfect symmetry (I have not read his book, but this is how I understand your statement). If this is correct, he has not proved atheism. If he proves that the world cannot come from nothingness in a quantum physical sense, the ultimate question remains unresolved. The world could either have always existed or come into existence through an action of God. Saying “existence cannot come from nothingness in a (quantum) physical sense” means that either the universe has always existed, which would be the materialist position, or God created it, which would be the theistic position. Unless he provides some reason to choose between these two possibilities he has only succeeded in narrowing the window in which atheism can work.

 

[PatThompson]

Thank you for the links, interesting how fast some people are to dismiss these ideas…

I will have to read the articles to better understand the theory, but when reggie said:

If nothingness contains something, then it is not nothingness.

I think the word ‘contains’ isn’t the best way of thinking of it. We’re not talking about a bottle that either contains water or doesn’t, but the possibility of something happening.

Does a piece of wood ‘contain’ smoke and fire? Or does it ‘contain’ the possibility to burn and smoke? I agree that there is still the question of where the lit match comes from, but the above quote is too simple…

 

[reggieM]

I think the word ‘contains’ isn’t the best way of thinking of it. We’re not talking about a bottle that either contains water or doesn’t, but the possibility of something happening.

Does a piece of wood ‘contain’ smoke and fire? Or does it ‘contain’ the possibility to burn and smoke? I agree that there is still the question of where the lit match comes from, but the above quote is too simple…

Pat – you may be right, but I think you need a better example or explanation.

Nothingness cannot possess a potential to act because in order to create smoke, for example, you have to have the wood and the match.

It’s like saying “nothingness can create something – first, start with some molecules and energy …”

In order for something to come into existence, something has to happen *before *its existence. Nothingness would have to “act on something” to bring something into existence. But nothingness has nothing by which it can act. There are no powers, energies, or matter. Nothingness cannot generate anything because it would require some kind of existence to do that.

The quality of existence itself is absent when there is nothing.

Existence or “being” must come from an eternal, infinite source – the Supreme Being.

In order for nothingness to have any potential at all, it would have to possess existence or Being. But those are the precise qualities that nothingness lacks. Existence or Being cannot be created (because something has to exist before it is created).

 

[JDaniel]

Pat – you may be right, but I think you need a better example or explanation.

Nothingness cannot possess a potential to act because in order to create smoke, for example, you have to have the wood and the match.

It’s like saying “nothingness can create something – first, start with some molecules and energy …”

In order for something to come into existence, something has to happen *before *its existence. Nothingness would have to “act on something” to bring something into existence. But nothingness has nothing by which it can act. There are no powers, energies, or matter. Nothingness cannot generate anything because it would require some kind of existence to do that.

The quality of existence itself is absent when there is nothing.

Existence or “being” must come from an eternal, infinite source – the Supreme Being.

In order for nothingness to have any potential at all, it would have to possess existence or Being. But those are the precise qualities that nothingness lacks. Existence or Being cannot be created (because something has to exist before it is created).

Hi, reggieM:

The problem with the Truth you have written here, is the difficulty one has expressing it (although you did it very well). I believe that is because, in modern times, and with the relegation of Aristotle and Aquinas to seats way back in the rear of the physics auditorium, all of the people in front of them have forgotten the steps they had to pass through before coming to the particular entry point of their science where they are now, or, where it has led them since.

Aristotle and St. Thomas started their science at the “general” level, and, rightfully so. As kids, all we know is sensible mobile being. As we get older, we begin pulling apart objects of sensible mobile being - to see what makes them “tick”. As we become more adept at pulling apart objects of sensible mobile being, we tend to lose sight of the original substance of sensible mobile being. It becomes more astounding to grasp the mechanics of substantial change, rather than the substance of that which underwent substantial change - the sensible mobile being. The thing itself.

Aristotle and St. Thomas reasoned from the existence of sensible mobile being that there are First Principles in Nature, which presuppose any and all of the particular sciences of motion and change. These three principles are Primary Matter (or Substance), and the two contraries, Possession and Privation. RULE # 1: All three must be present in order for any change to take place.

An example of accidental change would be the changing of the color of my house from blue to tan. The house is the substance, the blue is the possession of the contrary color, blue, and the privation of the contrary color, tan. Upon painting the house, the tan becomes the possession of the tan, and the blue would no longer be possessed.

An example of substantial change would be the burning of wood to ash. However, the primary matter remains. Even as a language convention, we say that we have turned the piece of wood into ash, some properties of the wood remain. So, we can’t say, “I burned some wood, but, it went away, and in its place this ash stuff appeared out of nowhere, or, out of nothing.”

Symmetry is not substance, or primary matter. It is the arrangement of something into a less and less chaotic form. But, it is the arrangement of something. The symmetry imposed by ours minds upon “nothing” is inert. It is a purely mathematical abstraction that exists in no thing(s). To attribute symmetry to nothing is to attribute arrangement to that which cannot be arranged.

Of course, as in science fiction, the mind of man can attribute anything he wants to anything he wants. In this case, “symmetry” which is an ordering of something into its perfect nature, we must not confuse “…aspects of abstract objects, theoretic models, language, music and even knowledge itself,” (- Wikipedia) with sensible mobile being, aka, “matter”.

jd

 

[glowingembers]

Symmetry is not substance, or primary matter. It is the arrangement of something into a less and less chaotic form. But, it is the arrangement of something. The symmetry imposed by ours minds upon “nothing” is inert. It is a purely mathematical abstraction that exists in no thing(s). To attribute symmetry to nothing is to attribute arrangement to that which cannot be arranged.

I wouldn’t say that symmetry is an arrangement of something into a less chaotic form (chaos can be quite symmetric because when everything moves in every direction then it all looks the same), but rather that symmetry is a degree of similarity. Indeed, when we talk about symmetry we talk about what things have in common. Now let’s imagine what happens when we increase the degree of similarity. Differences start to disappear and all things become more similar and indistinguishable from each other. Ultimately all things disapear because there will be no differences that would differentiate a thing from what it is not. This is the nothingness, perfect symmetry.

 

[glowingembers]

Suppose he is correct in that broken symmetry cannot logically arise from perfect symmetry (I have not read his book, but this is how I understand your statement).

Actually Stenger claims that broken symmetry can arise from perfect symmetry. I just noted that if Stenger is correct then it actually looks like he has proved that perfect symmetry or nothingness cannot exist because the term is self-contradictory like “round cube”.

 

[JDaniel]

I wouldn’t say that symmetry is an arrangement of something into a less chaotic form (chaos can be quite symmetric because when everything moves in every direction then it all looks the same), but rather that symmetry is a degree of similarity. Indeed, when we talk about symmetry we talk about what things have in common. Now let’s imagine what happens when we increase the degree of similarity. Differences start to disappear and all things become more similar and indistinguishable from each other. Ultimately all things disappear because there will be no differences that would differentiate a thing from what it is not. This is the nothingness, perfect symmetry.

Good. Then I would say that “perfect” symmetry is the arranging of things of greatest, or, absolutely the same, similarity, such that their differences become unobvious, rather than the absurd, “well, they all just disappeared because they all had the exact same symmetry. So, now they are nothing.”

You have still thrown out the underlying primary sensible matter. You can get away with this conceptually, or abstractly, but, not physically.

 

[JDaniel]

I wouldn’t say that symmetry is an arrangement of something into a less chaotic form (chaos can be quite symmetric because when everything moves in every direction then it all looks the same), but rather that symmetry is a degree of similarity. Indeed, when we talk about symmetry we talk about what things have in common. Now let’s imagine what happens when we increase the degree of similarity. Differences start to disappear and all things become more similar and indistinguishable from each other. Ultimately all things disappear because there will be no differences that would differentiate a thing from what it is not. This is the nothingness, perfect symmetry.

BTW, I can grasp the concept that “Ultimately all things disappear because there will be no differences that would differentiate a thing from what it is not. This is the nothingness…” In that case, perhaps the word used to signify that exigency we currently refer to as “nothing” should be changed to some other word. NO THING would seem to clearly imply the absence of any underlying thing(s) whatsoever. Thus, not even a set of absolutely symmetrical things. But, then, the case for the possibility of something from nothing would be lost.

jd

 

[crowonsnow]

Humans like to pretend. That’s where “perfect symmetry” and perfection and imperfection and nothingness have their genesis. They are not real, never have been, and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.

Of course we can call anything we want “perfect” or “imperfect” but it doesn’t change anything. We could call a robin an elephant. Same result.

I always thought it was interesting how astronomers “theorized” that the universe should be “perfectly” uniform, whatever that is, all the while observing that it is not. Never did understand what observations brought them to their conclusions about this perfection. The ability to fantasize, maybe call it wonder, has been selected for in humans because it’s good exercise for the brain. But it doesn’t give credence to any so called “perfection.”

 

[tonyrey]

Humans like to pretend. That’s where “perfect symmetry” and perfection and imperfection and nothingness have their genesis. They are not real, never have been, and there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.

Of course we can call anything we want “perfect” or “imperfect” but it doesn’t change anything. We could call a robin an elephant. Same result.

I always thought it was interesting how astronomers “theorized” that the universe should be “perfectly” uniform, whatever that is, all the while observing that it is not. Never did understand what observations brought them to their conclusions about this perfection. The ability to fantasize, maybe call it wonder, has been selected for in humans because it’s good exercise for the brain. But it doesn’t give credence to any so called “perfection.”

If you don’t believe in perfection how do you explain beauty? Or do you also regard that as an illusion?

 

[reggieM]

The ability to fantasize, maybe call it wonder, has been selected for in humans because it’s good exercise for the brain. But it doesn’t give credence to any so called “perfection.”

What, hypothetically, would give it credence?