Something out of nothing

[Aloysium]

There are various explanations for what is observed in the appearance and disappearance of particles or the decay of radioactive isotopes. What does not happen is the creation of new matter or energy. Nor is there chaos. Science is based on the assumption that the universe is rational, that it has an order and that the order can be understood.

While we think about effects following causes in time, in science the causes are the underlying unchanging properties of nature which produce patterns or sequences of events, the interactions that are the flux of the universe over time. We can predict what will happen based on the laws that we develop regarding the workings of nature. We do so with greater accuracy depending on our knowledge of how the object of our study behaves and what it will encounter. We do so projecting in the future, and likewise can predict what happened in the past by understanding what remains, its record in the present. What occurs in the present does not cause what will happen in the future any more than it causes what happened in the past. Physical events past, present and future are on a continuum of time which moves in one direction. Causes exist outside the flow of time.

To assume and then conclude that events just happen, that particles bring themselves in and out of existence, that isotopes decay in a haphazard manner is absolutely not what quantum physics suggests.

 

[STT]

…What does not happen is the creation of new matter or energy…

That is in fact plausible to have new matter or energy if the total change of energy in the process is zero.

 

[dshix]

What I say is that something can give something which it doesn’t have provided that the sums of the properties of something, the later, cancels each other out. As simple as this: 1+(-1)=0.

Very interesting theory. If we were to assume it were true, though, I don’t see how it solves your problem.

Nothingness is not a “-1”. It’s a zero. It’s nothing. “-1” is not nothing.

However, this theory is not true. Please provide some sort of evidence that you have to prove it, however, if you think you can.

 

[STT]

Very interesting theory. If we were to assume it were true, though, I don’t see how it solves your problem.

Well, that is how it solves the problem: You cannot get something out of nothing if the something is not reducible to nothing otherwise you can. Please read the following comment.

Nothingness is not a “-1”. It’s a zero. It’s nothing. “-1” is not nothing.

“0” is nothing in that example. Something is “1+(-1)” in that example.

However, this theory is not true. Please provide some sort of evidence that you have to prove it, however, if you think you can.

Big Bang is an example.

 

[dshix]

Well, that is how it solves the problem: You cannot get something out of nothing if the something is not reducible to nothing otherwise you can. Please read the following comment.

There is no such thing as “something that is reducible to nothing”. Nothing is the absence of anything, thus something cannot be reduced to it.

It is like saying you could factor a non-zero number with a set of elements that includes 0. It’s impossible; if you include 0 among the factors, it is impossible to reach the number.

“0” is nothing in that example. Something is “1+(-1)” in that example.

Yes… so?

Big Bang is an example.

No it is not, because the Big Bang was not caused by nothing, it was caused by God.
This is why the Big Bang is such a stumbling block for atheists, because it flies in the face of their beliefs.

 

[STT]

There is no such thing as “something that is reducible to nothing”. Nothing is the absence of anything, thus something cannot be reduced to it.

There are things that can be reducible to nothing. Think of the example that I gave you. “1+(-1)”=“0”.

Yes… so?

So you can get from nothing, “0”; something, “1+(-1)” because something has two properties in here where one is “1” and another is “(-1)”. in simple word: “0”=“1+(-1)”.

No it is not, because the Big Bang was not caused by nothing, it was caused by God.

The question is that how God could create something out of nothing if you accept the fact that something cannot comes out of nothing. You can say that God is all powerful etc but you first have to reject the principle you accepted (something cannot comes out of nothing) and then attributes some power to your God which make the creation of universe possible.

Somehow we are closer to understand the beginning of universe whether it was created by God or it was the result of quantum fluctuation if we accept and understand this way of looking at the problem.

This is why the Big Bang is such a stumbling block for atheists, because it flies in the face of their beliefs.

Have you ever seen that God creates something. How could you then believe that God is the creator?

 

[ericc]

I gave this example just as an evidence for quantum fluctuation. I didn’t claim that Cesium atom came into existence.

.

Is the decay of the Cesium atom an example of quantum fluctuation then? Show us why it is.

 

[ericc]

Quantum vacuum is vacuum state. There is nothing in vacuum state. Please read here.

There is nothing in quantum vacuum.

You didn’t read the article did you. I did. Let me reproduce the pertinent part of what your article says:

“According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.” Since it is not truly empty, it is not “nothing”.

And since the evidence that you showcase actually does not support your view, I shall let YOUR evidence speak for itself. To continue on and on with an untenable position surely is not wise.

 

[Darryl_B]

The problem of dark matter is related to standard model and not Big Bang idea.

No. no it is not. What you are doing is timestamping. Big Bang theory billions ago, dark matter present problem. Therefore a disassociation appears to exist. But it doesn’t.

Expansion of universe consequential to theory, expansion beyond expected gravitation, therefore dark matter theory. A filler to a problem generated from a theory, not an observation.

 

[dshix]

There are things that can be reducible to nothing. Think of the example that I gave you. “1+(-1)”=“0”.

The mathematical representation here does NOT provably carry to reality. Just like infinite mathematical series cannot be represented in reality.

Consider the infinite sum:
S = 1+2+3+4+5…

S, according to certain interpretations of mathematics, can be determined to be equal to -1/12.

This does not manifest in reality.

The question is that how God could create something out of nothing if you accept the fact that something cannot comes out of nothing. You can say that God is all powerful etc but you first have to reject the principle you accepted (something cannot comes out of nothing) and then attributes some power to your God which make the creation of universe possible.

Here’s the crux of the matter. The answer to the question of why God can create things is that God is essence. He is the answer to the cosmological question of how anything can exist.

God Himself is uncaused, because He has always existed. All things that we see in this world can only be explained by something else having caused them, and the ultimate question is: where does the chain end? What began it? On the seemingly infinite line of metaphorical train cars, what is the locomotive that gives them all motion?

The answer is God.

Have you ever seen that God creates something. How could you then believe that God is the creator?

One does not need to see something to know it. You have faith in the news; you didn’t personally witness Trump being elected president, but you know it happened. Why don’t you believe, instead, that all the news networks have fabricated it all, and it’s all a fantasy?

Similarly, we can look at the signs of creation. We see that there is intelligent design in creation; a common thread or pattern to created things. It is not rational to assume that these things, or life itself, must have come from mere chance, because the probability of that being possible is incredibly small.

One can determine through reason alone that God does, indeed, exist.

 

[STT]

Is the decay of the Cesium atom an example of quantum fluctuation then? Show us why it is.

You need to have small number of Cesium atoms to see the fluctuations. You see a band in decay spectrum once the number of Cesium atoms becomes enough large.

 

[STT]

You didn’t read the article did you. I did. Let me reproduce the pertinent part of what your article says:

“According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.” Since it is not truly empty, it is not “nothing”.

And since the evidence that you showcase actually does not support your view, I shall let YOUR evidence speak for itself. To continue on and on with an untenable position surely is not wise.

I didn’t read the article. I think that either the author misunderstood the concept or we are using a bad word to describe the state that there is nothing.

To my understanding the quantum vacuum can be represented as a ket |0> when the ket represent an state wit no particle and any other state can be derived from this state with creation operator |1>=C|0> where C is the creation operator and |1> is the state with one particle for example.

 

[STT]

The mathematical representation here does NOT provably carry to reality. Just like infinite mathematical series cannot be represented in reality.

Consider the infinite sum:
S = 1+2+3+4+5…

S, according to certain interpretations of mathematics, can be determined to be equal to -1/12.

This does not manifest in reality.

I am using mathematical representation to only show how the cancellation can happen. Of course reality is not as simple as the example that I provided. You need a far richer formalism to describe reality.

Here’s the crux of the matter. The answer to the question of why God can create things is that God is essence. He is the answer to the cosmological question of how anything can exist.

God Himself is uncaused, because He has always existed. All things that we see in this world can only be explained by something else having caused them, and the ultimate question is: where does the chain end? What began it? On the seemingly infinite line of metaphorical train cars, what is the locomotive that gives them all motion?

The answer is God.

This argument is problematic. We know example of things which has no cause, such as decay of Cesium atom and decision (your decision cannot be caused otherwise you are not an autonomous being).

 

[dshix]

This argument is problematic. We know example of things which has no cause, such as decay of Cesium atom and decision (your decision cannot be caused otherwise you are not an autonomous being).

Neither of those things you mention are uncaused. The decay of a cesium atom may appear random, but it is not provably uncaused. In fact, it is contingent upon the nature of the thing, so it is caused by that thing’s essence.

Free will is caused by the intelligent agent that chooses it. Not sure why you thought that was uncaused.

 

[STT]

Neither of those things you mention are uncaused. The decay of a cesium atom may appear random, but it is not provably uncaused. In fact, it is contingent upon the nature of the thing, so it is caused by that thing’s essence.

Nucleus is made of some neutrons and protons which interact with each other. The main source of causality inside a nucleus is interaction which is not random. This means that we don’t have any mechanism which explain the randomness of radiation hence the act of radiation is uncaused.

Free will is caused by the intelligent agent that chooses it. Not sure why you thought that was uncaused.

Free will is uncaused because it is up to agent to initiate a decision. By this I simply mean that the act of decision does not belong to a chain of causes.

So I provided two counter-examples which show that your argument for existence of God by using a chain of causes fails.

 

[dshix]

Nucleus is made of some neutrons and protons which interact with each other. The main source of causality inside a nucleus is interaction which is not random. This means that we don’t have any mechanism which explain the randomness of radiation hence the act of radiation is uncaused.

As I said before: the cause for the apparent randomness of radiation is the **nature **of the atom.

**Free will is uncaused because it is up to agent to initiate a decision. **By this I simply mean that the act of decision does not belong to a chain of causes.

So I provided two counter-examples which show that your argument for existence of God by using a chain of causes fails.

Reread your bolded sentence. That is a contradiction in terms. I think any other poster who comes and sees it will agree with me. Your own sentence contradicts itself.

 

[ericc]

You need to have small number of Cesium atoms to see the fluctuations. You see a band in decay spectrum once the number of Cesium atoms becomes enough large.

The vacuum is not empty then.

 

[ericc]

I didn’t read the article. I think that either the author misunderstood the concept or we are using a bad word to describe the state that there is nothing.

To my understanding the quantum vacuum can be represented as a ket |0> when the ket represent an state wit no particle and any other state can be derived from this state with creation operator |1>=C|0> where C is the creation operator and |1> is the state with one particle for example.

The author is not mistaken. The footnotes indicate clearly it is not empty empty, just physical particle empty. Physicists idea of a vacuum state is one that is not bereft of such energies. They need those energies to form and dissolve virtual particles. I believe most physicists do acknowledge the existence of such energies in the quantum vacuum. If you dig a bit more, you will come to the same understanding. Your equation only handles state of particle but not the energies which are required to form such particles.

We should move on. I think I made my point.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . we don’t have any mechanism which explain the randomness of radiation hence the act of radiation is uncaused.

Free will is uncaused because it is up to agent to initiate a decision. By this I simply mean that the act of decision does not belong to a chain of causes.

So I provided two counter-examples which show that your argument for existence of God by using a chain of causes fails.

At some point I had no explanation for what appears to be the randomness of life. I went on to develop an understanding of mother, father, etc. Innately, one assumes that there are reasons for what appears chaotic and searches for the underlying order. People get sick, and we look for cures. Matter has properties which we can know and manipulate. Because we do not yet understand something simply means that we don’t get it. It most certainly does not mean there is no order and underlying cause. You have to rethink this “proof” for radioactive decay being uncaused.

I have free will. I can behave in a way that hurts another or try to help them. My action is my responsibility. The goodness or evil of that act is not determined by me. If I laugh and ridicule a person, it hurts them emotionally and hurts me by damaging my relationship with others while taking one step in the direction of being a hurtful person. I neither cause the very reality of my being, having the capacity to act morally, nor the moral structure that defines human activity.

The Cause of the universe, physical, moral and personal is God.

One can always claim that one does not exist and that morality is purely subjective. One reads such confused ideas on these threads regularly. Good luck with that kind of thinking.

 

[Wesrock]

In regards to my own posts, I believe I’ve strayed off track in some areas. Rather than make any scientific claims about what we know or don’t know, the central issue is that A-T Scholastic understanding of causation is not as narrow as what is assumed in some other metaphysical views. If Q-M is contradictory to Thomism, it needs to be shown that Q-M contradicts the Scholastic understanding of causation, not that it contradicts the more narrow deterministic external cause definition commonly assumed by many today.

I’m going to read up on his further.