The Quatum leap out of nothing

[Linux]

1. The scientific method proceeds on the principle of methodological naturalism
2. Peer review Science therefore has nothing to say about that which exists or does not exist beyond physical reality or the limits of the scientific method.
3. The scientific method is limited to physical demonstration within a physical context, and thus empirical inferences (inductive inferences that can be empirically verified) cannot be made beyond that context.
4. When scientists, limited to peer review standards, says that an object came out of nothing, it is not a metaphysical statement about how an object came to be. It is not the claim that an object came to be by itself out of absolute nothingness, since nothingness is not an empirical entity and neither is the idea that a thing came to be by itself something that is empirically verifiable. These are metaphysical claims that go beyond the legitimate and epistemological limits of the scientific method and asserts metaphysical-naturalism as opposed to methodological naturalism.

Conclusion: Quantum particles, fluctuate in and out of nothing physical. This cannot be taken to be scientific evidence or even metaphysical evidence that these events occur without an existential-cause; that is to say a cause that actualizes the potential of a particles existence. It can only be taken to be scientific evidence of the idea that there is no physical cause; which is entirely different to saying that it has no cause at all.

I am not claiming to know much about quantum events, however there are limits to what science can say about the universe, where it comes from, and how it comes to be.

 

[Beryllos]

Quantum particles fluctuating in and out of empty space may be merely a useful model, and not the only model that explains experimental results. The problem that I see is that these particles (or waves, just the same) cannot be detected unless there is a field (e.g., electric field) which can supply the energy necessary to create the particles. Therefore, an alternative view is that the particles are created by the field, not “out of nothing.”

In another recent thread, someone mentioned the Casimir effect. When I looked it up, I found that it can be explained either by particles/waves appearing out of empty space between two metal plates, which of course sounds quite exotic, or by the van der Waals interaction between the metal surfaces, which is a quite ordinary, commonplace, and well-understood effect.

Finally, I have to say I am unimpressed by science “news” articles that make gee-whiz claims such as one that the vacuum has infinite energy. Get real. If some physicist has an equation that says the energy is infinite, I tend to suspect an error or shortcoming of his theoretical methods. It wouldn’t be the first time physicists have had to deal with mathematical infinities that have no physical meaning.

P.S. My apologies, Linux, for not taking a formal philosophical approach.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

1. The scientific method proceeds on the principle of methodological naturalism
2. Peer review Science therefore has nothing to say about that which exists or does not exist beyond physical reality or the limits of the scientific method.
3. The scientific method is limited to physical demonstration within a physical context, and thus empirical inferences (inductive inferences that can be empirically verified) cannot be made beyond that context.
4. When scientists, limited to peer review standards, says that an object came out of nothing, it is not a metaphysical statement about how an object came to be. It is not the claim that an object came to be by itself out of absolute nothingness, since nothingness is not an empirical entity and neither is the idea that a thing came to be by itself something that is empirically verifiable. These are metaphysical claims that go beyond the legitimate and epistemological limits of the scientific method and asserts metaphysical-naturalism as opposed to methodological naturalism.

Conclusion: Quantum particles, fluctuate in and out of nothing physical. This cannot be taken to be scientific evidence or even metaphysical evidence that these events occur without an existential-cause; that is to say a cause that actualizes the potential of a particles existence. It can only be taken to be scientific evidence of the idea that there is no physical cause; which is entirely different to saying that it has no cause at all.

I am not claiming to know much about quantum events, however there are limits to what science can say about the universe, where it comes from, and how it comes to be.

I concur. Even under the assumption that the scientific model is actually true as far as it goes, it simply fails to answer the question of existence.

 

[sealoch]

1. The scientific method proceeds on the principle of methodological naturalism
2. Peer review Science therefore has nothing to say about that which exists or does not exist beyond physical reality or the limits of the scientific method.
3. The scientific method is limited to physical demonstration within a physical context, and thus empirical inferences (inductive inferences that can be empirically verified) cannot be made beyond that context.
4. When scientists, limited to peer review standards, says that an object came out of nothing, it is not a metaphysical statement about how an object came to be. It is not the claim that an object came to be by itself out of absolute nothingness, since nothingness is not an empirical entity and neither is the idea that a thing came to be by itself something that is empirically verifiable. These are metaphysical claims that go beyond the legitimate and epistemological limits of the scientific method and asserts metaphysical-naturalism as opposed to methodological naturalism.

Conclusion: Quantum particles, fluctuate in and out of nothing physical. This cannot be taken to be scientific evidence or even metaphysical evidence that these events occur without an existential-cause; that is to say a cause that actualizes the potential of a particles existence. It can only be taken to be scientific evidence of the idea that there is no physical cause; which is entirely different to saying that it has no cause at all.

I am not claiming to know much about quantum events, however there are limits to what science can say about the universe, where it comes from, and how it comes to be.

There are many that have explained what happened you can accept it or not. That will not change what occurred. Also your three points are not either or there are many other options.
1: this only applies to situations where you would put god into the formula. The scientific method applies to many more situations chemistry, gravity, thermal dynamics just to list a few.
2: Go on they don’t because its not testable or review-able and therefore probably moot
3: This statement builds upon itself and collapses.
4: No one postulates that the universe came out of nothing.
ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/
Conclusion:
Quantum mechanics are very difficult to understand. People who have made a life’s work trying to understand them do not. I do not know you but i can guess you do not study QM.
’
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.’ Richard Feynman

 

[Iron_Donkey]

There are many that have explained what happened you can accept it or not. That will not change what occurred. Also your three points are not either or there are many other options.
1: this only applies to situations where you would put god into the formula. The scientific method applies to many more situations chemistry, gravity, thermal dynamics just to list a few. The first part is not true, and the second is not questioned.
2: Go on they don’t because its not testable or review-able and therefore probably moot Begging the question and unprovable empirically
3: This statement builds upon itself and collapses. Not even sure what this means.
4: No one postulates that the universe came out of nothing. I can’t say whether or not any actual scientists intended to do so, but the “self creating universe” is popular among the non scientists who worship science anyway.
ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/
Conclusion:
Quantum mechanics are very difficult to understand. People who have made a life’s work trying to understand them do not. I do not know you but i can guess you do not study QM.
’
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.’ Richard Feynman

To the Feynman quote: if it were changed to “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong” then that’d be fine. But this says nothing about that which cannot be experimented upon. The fact that there exist non-standard models of the theory of the natural numbers, for example.

 

[sealoch]

To the Feynman quote: if it were changed to “if it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong” then that’d be fine. But this says nothing about that which cannot be experimented upon. The fact that there exist non-standard models of the theory of the natural numbers, for example.

Feynmans quote does say that just more poetically. Numbers are not really science are they. They are how people are able to communicate quantities to each other. So of course that opens a whole can of worms.
As for pure mathematics it all depends on the uses of it of whether it is testable or not.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Feynmans quote does say that just more poetically. Numbers are not really science are they. They are how people are able to communicate quantities to each other. So of course that opens a whole can of worms.
As for pure mathematics it all depends on the uses of it of whether it is testable or not.

Yeah, I modified the quote slightly only because it could be construed to say “only that which has been verified by experiment is true.” I realize that is not what he meant.

And I brought up pure mathematics precisely because there are truths there that cannot be verified empirically, yet are not questioned in the same way that theology and philosophy are. One cannot say that everything that empirical methods don’t apply to is moot without throwing away mathematics as well.

 

[sealoch]

Yeah, I modified the quote slightly only because it could be construed to say “only that which has been verified by experiment is true.” I realize that is not what he meant.

And I brought up pure mathematics precisely because there are truths there that cannot be verified empirically, yet are not questioned in the same way that theology and philosophy are. One cannot say that everything that empirical methods don’t apply to is moot without throwing away mathematics as well.

Some would argue that some areas of mathmatics are moot as they are not useful for that reason.

 

[empther]

Conclusion: Quantum particles, fluctuate in and out of nothing physical.

Ah yes, the old “quantum effect” argument. I’ve seen this before. It’s a favorite on the atheists forum I belonged to before being banned.

The laws of quantum mechanics can only work on something that already exists. If there is absolutely nothing,
then there are no quantum mechanics laws in operation in the first place! :bigyikes:

So quantum mechanics didn’t cause the universe.

Any other ideas, Linux?

 

[Linux]

Some would argue that some areas of mathmatics are moot as they are not useful for that reason.

Neither is the scientific method useful for construing what is and what is not acceptable knowledge. Neither is the scientific method capable of determining whether or not a thing can begin to exist without an existential-cause. It can only determine if a thing has no physical mechanistic cause. The scientific method properly applied simply describes events as they happen. It makes no metaphysical inferences.

 

[Linux]

Ah yes, the old “quantum effect” argument. I’ve seen this before. It’s a favorite on the atheists forum I belonged to before being banned.

The laws of quantum mechanics can only work on something that already exists. If there is absolutely nothing,
then there are no quantum mechanics laws in operation in the first place! :bigyikes:

So quantum mechanics didn’t cause the universe.

Any other ideas, Linux?

I did not argue that quantum mechanics is the existential-cause of the universe.

Anymore straw-men empther?

Something tells me you wasn’t banned for making reasonable theistic arguments.

 

[Gorgias]

No one postulates that the universe came out of nothing.
ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/

Actually, Lawrence Krauss makes that claim. The problem is, he’s pointing to a ‘something’ without particles (a relativistic quantum field) and demonstrating that these ‘vacuum states’ are unstable; therefore, he claims, there can (and must!) be ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’, because ‘nothing’ (at the quantum level) doesn’t work well in our reality.

However, as empther points out, the ‘nothing’ he points to is actually ‘something’: a quantum field (albeit without particles). The question, then, must naturally be moved back a level: from whence the quantum field?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Some would argue that some areas of mathmatics are moot as they are not useful for that reason.

Ha, right up until these odd mathematical constructs become useful when some new phenomenon is discovered.

Theology and philosophy might actually be rather similar. It can appear to be moot, right up to the point when you seriously ask what it means to… do anything. How should the world be shaped, what behavior is acceptable and not. And then, of course, there’s the question of what happens after you die. We’re all gonna face that sooner or later.

Yeah, there are those who argue that a lot of mathematics is moot, and some areas of mathematics do not appear to have any technological use at the moment, that is true. But there is a world of difference between “no use or future use is readily apparent to me” and “moot”. Especially given that the last test of theology we’ll all face can be rather sudden and unpredictable.

 

[Gorgias]

I did not argue that quantum mechanics is the existential-cause of the universe.

Anymore straw-men empther?

It looks more like empther simply confused you and sealoch, rather than that he was throwing a strawman argument at you…

 

[StrawberryJam]

I concur. Even under the assumption that the scientific model is actually true as far as it goes, it simply fails to answer the question of existence.

Some people demand pat answers even if they are made up answers.
There is nothing worthy about having an answer right now.
There is something worthy about saying, we are continually looking into it and will never stop.
There is something shady about the one who says we just know, just trust us.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Some people demand pat answers even if they are made up answers.
There is nothing worthy about having an answer right now.
There is something worthy about saying, we are continually looking into it and will never stop.
There is something shady about the one who says we just know, just trust us.

Yes, but looking isn’t limited to physical experiments - which haven’t merely so far failed to answer the question, but are logically incapable of doing so. Looking can also involve the application of reason to the ideas themselves, and then also to the purported revelations to see what is true. And it is not at all shady to notice when this looking of the second sort actually turns up something.

A simply made up answer is certainly worthless. An answer that is only ever defended by “trust us” is definitely ill defended, and likely worthless. But neither of those describe the philosophical or theological approaches to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”

 

[StrawberryJam]

Yes, but looking isn’t limited to physical experiments - which haven’t merely so far failed to answer the question, but are logically incapable of doing so. Looking can also involve the application of reason to the ideas themselves, and then also to the purported revelations to see what is true. And it is not at all shady to notice when this looking of the second sort actually turns up something.

A simply made up answer is certainly worthless. An answer that is only ever defended by “trust us” is definitely ill defended, and likely worthless. But neither of those describe the philosophical or theological approaches to the question “why is there something rather than nothing?”

Again, you seem to indicate that “failing” to answer questions right now that are constantly being looked at is somehow inferior to another method.
I wonder why there is such a need or demand for pat answers.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Again, you seem to indicate that “failing” to answer questions right now that are constantly being looked at is somehow inferior to another method.
I wonder why there is such a need or demand for pat answers.

I think you may be misunderstand what I am saying.

Science is not looking at the question “why is there something rather than nothing.” It can’t. It’s not logically possible.

Now, science might be able to answer the question “why is there stuff in space rather than not stuff in space,” but that is not the same question at all.

Nor are we making up answers or grasping at straws because we demand an answer “right now”. That is not it at all. The fact is we have an answer that stands very well by itself, and so hold on to it. It is no more a result of impatience simply because it didn’t come from physical experimentation than the fact that apples tend to fall to the ground when released is a result of impatience because that fact is not a direct result of philosophy.

Again, the answer is there. Admitting to have and acting on an answer that you have does at all equate to impatience with not having answers. Rather, it is simply not being in the state of not having answers.

 

[Qoeleth]

Quantum physics- it strikes me as nonsense. A particle, no matter how small, cannot just ‘pop’ into being. Why should I believe it? Because other people ‘say’ its true?

 

[inocente]

1. When scientists, limited to peer review standards, says that an object came out of nothing, it is not a metaphysical statement about how an object came to be. It is not the claim that an object came to be by itself out of absolute nothingness, since nothingness is not an empirical entity and neither is the idea that a thing came to be by itself something that is empirically verifiable. These are metaphysical claims that go beyond the legitimate and epistemological limits of the scientific method and asserts metaphysical-naturalism as opposed to methodological naturalism.

Conclusion: Quantum particles, fluctuate in and out of nothing physical. This cannot be taken to be scientific evidence or even metaphysical evidence that these events occur without an existential-cause; that is to say a cause that actualizes the potential of a particles existence. It can only be taken to be scientific evidence of the idea that there is no physical cause; which is entirely different to saying that it has no cause at all.

I am not claiming to know much about quantum events, however there are limits to what science can say about the universe, where it comes from, and how it comes to be.

Most academic journals including philosophical are peer reviewed, not just science.

The theory which predicts the particles has been around for decades and is one of the most rigorously tested theories in all physics.

The word nothing is colloquially used to mean empty space, but empirically empty space is found to be far from nothing.

Couple of short videos by way of explanation:

youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 (Lawrence Krauss)
youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY (Derek Muller)