Nothing (General)
The problem with the Problem with this Section is that this section is getting mixed up with other sections! The whole thread is getting into a tangle of discussions, and so I hope you won't mind if we separate the issues. To start the new one off, please respond to this post, but give a precise reference to the post you're referring to: e.g. in response to David's post of 26 November at 00.53....I've done it far too late, and it will probably mean the kiss of death for this discussion, but in that case the thread will appropriately come to nothing.-For those who are interested, there was an earlier discussion under: why is there anytthing at all? I don't know how "anytthing" acquired its double t - overcompensating for the void, perhaps? - but I can't edit it out.-I shall put the consciousness/afterlife discussion on a new thread as well, when I get time to respond to Frank's latest posts.
Nothing
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Friday, November 27, 2009, 20:11 (5287 days ago) @ dhw
Here are some quotes from Stenger to clarify his views about "nothing". -First it is necessary to clarify what he means by "unphysical region". He begins with an account of quantum tunneling by which a physical particle can pass through a potential barrier he says: "inside the barrier the momentum of the particle is an imaginary number, that is, has a negative square root and so is "unphysical", meaning unmeasurable. There is a certain probability that the particle will penetrate the barrier.-He then applies this to the origin of the universe, citing the work of James Hartle and Stephen Hawking and later Alexander Vilenkin. According to Vilenkin's version he writes: "our universe simply tunnels its way out of chaos". For fuller details see his Philo article. A PDF version can be located on his website: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ about two thirds down the page under the heading "A Scenario for a Natural Origin of Our Universe".-This is from Quantum Gods page 250:-"If we seek out the origin of the word "chaos" we find that it comes from the Greek for "the primal emptiness" or "void". To be "something" requires some structure. Since the unphysical region lacks everything, including structure, it can be identified with "nothing". Now, if you are what in the cyberworld is called a "logic chopper" you will try to argue that having no structure is still a property and anything with a property can't be nothing. Don't bother e-mailing me with such irrelevant word-play. The unphysical region is as nothing as anything can be."
--
GPJ
Nothing
by David Turell , Friday, November 27, 2009, 20:49 (5286 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Here are some quotes from Stenger to clarify his views about "nothing". > > First it is necessary to clarify what he means by "unphysical region". He begins with an account of quantum tunneling by which a physical particle can pass through a potential barrier he says: "inside the barrier the momentum of the particle is an imaginary number, that is, has a negative square root and so is "unphysical", meaning unmeasurable. There is a certain probability that the particle will penetrate the barrier. > > He then applies this to the origin of the universe, citing the work of James Hartle and Stephen Hawking and later Alexander Vilenkin. According to Vilenkin's version he writes: "our universe simply tunnels its way out of chaos". For fuller details see his Philo article. A PDF version can be located on his website: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ about two thirds down the page under the heading "A Scenario for a Natural Origin of Our Universe". > > This is from Quantum Gods page 250: > > "If we seek out the origin of the word "chaos" we find that it comes from the Greek for "the primal emptiness" or "void". To be "something" requires some structure. Since the unphysical region lacks everything, including structure, it can be identified with "nothing". Now, if you are what in the cyberworld is called a "logic chopper" you will try to argue that having no structure is still a property and anything with a property can't be nothing. Don't bother e-mailing me with such irrelevant word-play. The unphysical region is as nothing as anything can be."-Hate to butt in but you are sticking to a one-trick pony:-Re: Nothingness and the rise of something -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I talked to Vic Stenger about his ideas a while back in an attempt to suggest that he is just reinventing Hegel's Absolute Idea, the spiritual unity that would be prior to the world of forms. George Spencer Brown's Laws of Form gives mathematical model of this idea, a calculus that captures the metaphysical scheme of Taoism, Buddhism, Sufism, etc. Russell praised this calculus highly but failed to see its true meaning. Stenger wouldn't even take an interest, mysticism being axiomatically a load of nonsense. Personally, I would say that a rational thinker must find ex nihilo creation a load of nonsense, and that Stenger, Guth and others who favour it are poor metaphysicians. They don't seem to realise that the idea of the origin of the universe as ''nothing spontaneously breaking symmetry to become something' is just mysticism. Except, of course, that it would only appear to by Nothing becoming Something. If this process were any more than an appearance then the ancient paradox that causes normally sensible physicists to consider ex nihilo creation would arise. I wish people like Stenger would do some research into these things, then he would not be so casually dismissing the only idea that works.-I can use one trick also.
Nothing
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Saturday, November 28, 2009, 19:44 (5286 days ago) @ David Turell
Is that your argument or are you quoting someone? I'm afraid I don't see what it's getting at. It seems to be a simple assertion.-Quote: "Personally, I would say that a rational thinker must find ex nihilo creation a load of nonsense, and that Stenger, Guth and others who favour it are poor metaphysicians. They don't seem to realise that the idea of the origin of the universe as ''nothing spontaneously breaking symmetry to become something' is just mysticism."-I would call myself a rational thinker, and I don't find ex nihilo creation a load of nonsense. In fact I think it's one of the best ideas for a long time. It is the "metaphysicians" who are out of date in their understanding of what "nothing" means. They have not grasped the logic of quantum theory. They still think "nothing" can have a meaning in absolute terms.-This philosophy, or metaphysics if you prefer, is neither dualism nor monism but "nullism". It does not have to presume anything to start with. It is the ultimate fulfilment of Ockham's Razor. -This is not mysticism at all. It is physics. It is a logical interpretation of the mathematical equations that describe the cosmos.
--
GPJ
Nothing
by David Turell , Sunday, November 29, 2009, 00:59 (5285 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Is that your argument or are you quoting someone? I'm afraid I don't see what it's getting at. It seems to be a simple assertion. > > Quote: "Personally, I would say that a rational thinker must find ex nihilo creation a load of nonsense, and that Stenger, Guth and others who favour it are poor metaphysicians. They don't seem to realise that the idea of the origin of the universe as ''nothing spontaneously breaking symmetry to become something' is just mysticism."-I put this quote from Physics Forums on line on 11/25/09 at 19:44. Perhaps you didn't pick up on it. As far as I am concerned my Occam's approach is that we live in a universe with "virtual space", a seething cauldron of virtual quantum particles that can pop into and out of existence. Beyond our expanding space is what I conceive of as absolute void. Nothing, into which this universe is expanding. I don't care what Stenger writes or calculates. Math calculates string theory and it has gone nowhere in cosmology. I find lots of criticism of him by physists and philosophers.
Nothing
On the Stenger site, under GOD: THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS, I see he comes up with one of those hackneyed arguments ... like God-of-the Gaps ... which get trotted out as if they actually meant something significant. He writes: "Not only does the universe show no evidence for God, it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God." The same silly claim is often applied to life and to evolution.-How the heck does anyone know what a universe/life/evolution would look like if there is or isn't a God? This is the only universe/life/evolution we know. In other words, we can't "expect" anything, because there's no precedent for us to base expectations on. Or have Stenger et al. been on mystical trips to other worlds?-À propos of nothing, let me ask a naïve question, which has been asked many times but the answer to which I have never understood. If the Big Bang really did take place, and if the universe was created "ex nihilo", what went bang?
Nothing
by David Turell , Monday, November 30, 2009, 16:50 (5284 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Monday, November 30, 2009, 16:58
On the Stenger site, under GOD: THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS, I see he comes up with one of those hackneyed arguments ... like God-of-the Gaps ... which get trotted out as if they actually meant something significant. He writes: "Not only does the universe show no evidence for God, it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God." The same silly claim is often applied to life and to evolution. > > How the heck does anyone know what a universe/life/evolution would look like if there is or isn't a God? This is the only universe/life/evolution we know. In other words, we can't "expect" anything, because there's no precedent for us to base expectations on. Or have Stenger et al. been on mystical trips to other worlds?-Stenger can be made to look even sillier, by George Ellis' review of his book:-http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/27736 > > À propos of nothing, let me ask a naïve question, which has been asked many times but the answer to which I have never understood. If the Big Bang really did take place, and if the universe was created "ex nihilo", what went bang?-According to Guth, Valenkin, Stenger, et. al. a vacuum fluctuation. This presumes the vacuum space-time that is in our universe pre-existed the appearance of the universe; it contained potential quantum events which could come and go in 10 ^minus 23 power of a second. So it is not ex nihilo, if an absolute void, with a true nothing existed first.-So, if nothingness can be described as somethingness, Stenger and Guth have a way to create the universe without 'outside, possibly divine, help'. Mathmatically, nothingness has perfect symmetry and Stenger conjures up theory and math to find somethingness. Nothing really proven, of course, just math/philosophic babble, as suggested by a copied internet post I sent for George from Physics Forums.
Nothing
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, November 30, 2009, 17:28 (5284 days ago) @ David Turell
I looked at the George Ellis article, though I had to register with the Institute of Physics to read it.-His opinion is: "The author is thus committing a category error in trying to use scientific proof in areas where it simply does not apply."-This idea that there is a realm of knowledge that is based on other methods than those of reason is the usual religious nonsense. There is no such place. Either that or he has a very restricted view of what counts as science.
--
GPJ
Nothing
by David Turell , Monday, November 30, 2009, 18:48 (5284 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I looked at the George Ellis article, though I had to register with the Institute of Physics to read it. > > His opinion is: "The author is thus committing a category error in trying to use scientific proof in areas where it simply does not apply."-Ellis has other reasonable criticisms that Geoerge has not listed. If you don't want to register use my sign in: Caesaar and 1041993
Nothing
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, November 30, 2009, 17:02 (5284 days ago) @ dhw
dhw says that Stenger's claim: "Not only does the universe show no evidence for God, it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God." is silly. -There is nothing silly about this at all. In the preface to "God: The Failed Hypothesis" he writes: "The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of a God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us. Various models will be assumed in which God has specific attribiutes that can be tested empirically. That is, if a God with such attributes exists, certain phenomena should be observable. Any failure to pass a specific test will be regarded as a failure of that particular model. Furthermore, if the actual observations are as expected in the absence of the specified deity, then this can be taken as an additional mark against his existence."-This seems eminently reasonable. The only problem is that religionists often postulate a God who works in mysterious ways that are supposedly beyond our comprehension. Such a God by definition cannot be tested for. It is surely very questionable whether such a concept is philosophically sound. If a God can't be tested for and has no understandable effects, can it be said to exist?-As a simple example. If there is a benevolent God howcome all the nastiness in the world? One would "expect" something very different from this hypothesis. Nothing new in this argument of course, but it is still strong.-I don't see why dhw is bothered by Stenger's arguments anyway. He's an agnostic and doesn't know if there is a God of any sort or what such a God's properties might be if it did exist, and therefore he cannot provide any testable predictions. He just hypothesises that there might be something in some hypothesis or other that soemone might come up with.- dhw also asks: "If the Big Bang really did take place, and if the universe was created "ex nihilo", what went bang?" -The name "Big Bang" was a derogatory term given to the expansion theory by Fred Hoyle who favoured a Steady State theory. It is the universe itself, or the universe in its primordial state, that went Bang. Because of Guth's inflation theory the Bang is now thought to have been even bigger than was thought in Hoyle's day. The rapidity of the inflation explains a lot of the uniformity.-DT raises the related idea: "Beyond our expanding space is what I conceive of as absolute void. Nothing, into which this universe is expanding."-The human mind, and indeed I should imagine any alien mind, has difficulty thinking about the universe (which is everything there is) without envisioning it as being within something else, a larger universe, even if that larger universe consists of "nothing". But the whole point of the expansion theory is that the universe isn't "expanding into" anything, it is just expanding in the sense that the distances between the galaxies are increasing. Distance, i.e. space, only exists within the universe. -If we allow the concept of a "nothing" that exists outside the universe, it would not have the properties of space, i.e. it would not be possible to measure distances within it, since it would then be a real space of some sort and not a "nothing". But this type of philosophically absolute nothing is not really a useful concept, it just leads to paradox.
--
GPJ
Nothing
by David Turell , Monday, November 30, 2009, 17:23 (5284 days ago) @ George Jelliss
edited by unknown, Monday, November 30, 2009, 17:29
dhw says that Stenger's claim: "Not only does the universe show no evidence for God, it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God." is silly.-I agree > > There is nothing silly about this at all. In the preface to "God: The Failed Hypothesis" he writes: "The process I will follow is the scientific method of hypothesis testing. The existence of a God will be taken as a scientific hypothesis and the consequences of that hypothesis searched for in objective observations of the world around us. Various models will be assumed in which God has specific attribiutes that can be tested empirically. -Who does the assuming? Or who is to define the concept on God? Certainly not religions. They are working on faith, and have no emperical answer. Stenger? He is extremely biased, and his philosophy is certainly muddled.The next comment of yours describes and solves the issue.- > > This seems eminently reasonable. The only problem is that religionists often postulate a God who works in mysterious ways that are supposedly beyond our comprehension. Such a God by definition cannot be tested for.-Exactly. A God composed of theories from religion cannot be tested for. Faith is not emperical. -> > As a simple example. If there is a benevolent God howcome all the nastiness in the world? One would "expect" something very different from this hypothesis. Nothing new in this argument of course, but it is still strong.-That is because you are attacking a God invented by religion. That is why Frank's approach and mine are more reasonable. > > I don't see why dhw is bothered by Stenger's arguments anyway. He's an agnostic and doesn't know if there is a God of any sort or what such a God's properties might be if it did exist, and therefore he cannot provide any testable predictions. -Exactly my point. You are arguing for my viewpoint, a common atheist mistake. That is why the idea of design is appealing. In years to come if the full complexities of life are elucidated, it may be able to show mathmatically that a chance process could not have accomplished it. Sort of a proof by negativity.-> > DT raises the related idea: "Beyond our expanding space is what I conceive of as absolute void. Nothing, into which this universe is expanding." > > The human mind, and indeed I should imagine any alien mind, has difficulty thinking about the universe (which is everything there is) without envisioning it as being within something else, a larger universe, even if that larger universe consists of "nothing". But the whole point of the expansion theory is that the universe isn't "expanding into" anything, it is just expanding in the sense that the distances between the galaxies are increasing. Distance, i.e. space, only exists within the universe. -I agree with your point. > > If we allow the concept of a "nothing" that exists outside the universe, it would not have the properties of space, i.e. it would not be possible to measure distances within it, since it would then be a real space of some sort and not a "nothing". But this type of philosophically absolute nothing is not really a useful concept, it just leads to paradox.-No, conceive of it as 'no' space. it doesn't feel paradoxical to me. Just image a raisin bread baking in an oven, the old way cosmologists explained everything. "No space" is the interior of the oven, without the heat.
Nothing
There's been a misunderstanding, which is largely my fault. I couldn't split Stenger's sentence, and George has focused entirely on the first part ("Not only does the universe show no evidence for God...") and ignored the second ("it looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God"). Consequently he has also ignored the whole of my argument, which concerns the second part! My apologies. Let's start again.-I pointed out that the same silly claim (the second part) is often applied to life and evolution. It is silly because, as I wrote, nobody has a clue "what a universe/life/evolution would look like if there is or is not a God. This is the only universe/life/evolution we know. In other words, we can't "expect" anything, because there's no precedent for us to base expectations on. Or have Stenger et al. been on mystical trips to other worlds?"-The reason why I'm "bothered by Stenger's arguments" is that I don't like silly claims, especially when they're taken seriously by intelligent people. (Jason Rosenhouse used exactly the same argument in an article recommended by Matt.) If an ID-er said the universe/life/evolution looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is a God, you would probably have a good laugh and say "How do you know?" I'm asking the same question to both parties. Without a precedent, we have no point of reference. -As for the first part of Stenger's statement (the universe shows no evidence for God), I'd again bracket the universe with life and evolution, and that brings us back to the whole debate of chance v. design, which will run indefinitely.-My second point was: If the Big Bang really happened, and if the universe was created "ex nihilo", what went bang? -GEORGE: It is the universe, or the universe in its primordial state, that went Bang.-This is like saying that whatever existed before the bang went bang. My question is how can "nothing" go bang? The discussion on what the universe is expanding into is interesting, but that was not my question. My naïve common sense tells me that "nothing" can't go bang, notwithstanding vacuum fluctuations, potential quantum events, symmetry, broken symmetry, or the invisible, intangible, ineffable force ... though I can think of some appropriate effs ... that keeps knocking out my computer. So I still don't understand the logic of "creation ex nihilo".
Nothing
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Friday, December 04, 2009, 17:53 (5280 days ago) @ dhw
dhw claims that Stenger's statement that "... the universe ... looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God") is silly.-I see nothing silly about it.-The last part of his summary at the end of "Quantum Gods" reads:-"The model in which the universe is made of matter and nothing else and had a spontaneous, uncaused, natural origin from a state of chaos equivalent to "nothing" agrees with all the data. As a state of the universe, "something" is more natural than "nothing"."-dhw claims: "... we can't "expect" anything, because there's no precedent for us to base expectations on."-Given purely materialist assumptions we can make deductions from the equations of physics, which lead to our present cosmos. There is no need for other hypotheses to explain anything. -dhw comments: "If an ID-er said the universe/life/evolution looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is a God, you would probably have a good laugh and say "How do you know?" I'm asking the same question to both parties. Without a precedent, we have no point of reference."-ID-ers claim the universe shows design, but do not say who the designer was. Their claims of "irreducible complexity" have been refuted. -Creationists claim that the universe was designed by a God, but their ideas of the nature of this god and how it goes about its designs are unclear. Their claims that the universe was created in a perfect state some 6000 years ago have likewise been refuted.-dhw also asks: "... how can "nothing" go bang? ... My naïve common sense tells me that "nothing" can't go bang, notwithstanding vacuum fluctuations, potential quantum events, symmetry, broken symmetry ...".-It seems that this is just a failure of imagination on dhw's part.
--
GPJ
Nothing
Stenger claims that the universe "looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God." Since we have no other universe, designed or non-designed, to compare it to, I have asked how anyone can possibly know what a universe with or without God is "expected" to look like. The same silly ... in my view ... argument has been applied to life and evolution by other writers. -In response, George has listed DIFFERENT arguments against design. Firstly, let me say yet again that I'm not arguing for design, or indeed for anything, but only against claims like the above, which trivialize the whole debate. Secondly, it's no defence of a silly claim to put forward DIFFERENT arguments that are not silly. George's points are as follows: -1) He quotes Stenger: "The model in which the universe is made of matter and nothing else and had a spontaneous, uncaused, natural origin from a state of chaos equivalent to "nothing" agrees with all the data." Do we have all the data? ID-ers also claim that their theory "agrees with" the data we have on the origin of the universe/life/evolution. Do terms like "spontaneous" and "uncaused" represent objective scientific conclusions? How is this argument linked to Stenger's knowledge of what a designed/non-designed universe is "expected" to look like? Expected by whom, and according to what criteria? -2) George: "Given purely materialist assumptions we can make deductions from the equations of physics, which lead to our present cosmos." The equations of physics are derived from our observation of the universe and everything in it. It's therefore scarcely surprising that the equations of physics (as we know them) lead to the present cosmos (as we know it)! But whenever we discover new facts about the cosmos, we have to find different equations. Do we have all the facts? How is this linked to Stenger's knowledge etc.?-3) George: "ID-ers claim the universe shows design, but do not say who the designer was." Agreed, but how is this linked to Stenger's knowledge etc.? (Ditto "irreducible complexity".)-4) George: "Creationists claim that the universe was designed by a God, but their ideas of the nature of this god and how it goes about its designs are unclear. Their claims that the universe was created in a perfect state some 6000 years ago have likewise been refuted." Agreed, but how is this linked to Stenger's knowledge etc.?-I also asked how "nothing" could go bang. George: "It seems that this is just a failure of imagination on dhw's part." Good to know that one needs a vivid imagination to buttress scientific theories. You quote Stenger: "As a state of the universe, 'something' is more natural than 'nothing'." According to your previous post it was the "universe, or the universe in its primordial state, that went Bang." So if something is more natural than nothing, maybe it was something and not nothing that went bang. This certainly seems more natural to me. And if it was something, creation was not "ex nihilo".
Nothing
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Monday, December 07, 2009, 12:01 (5277 days ago) @ dhw
dhw again says that Stenger's claim that the universe "looks exactly as it would be expected to look if there is no God." is silly "Since we have no other universe, designed or non-designed, to compare it to. It would seem then on this criterion that we can't say anything definite about our universe unless we have experience of other universes. This is definitely silly. -I quoted Stenger: "The model in which the universe is made of matter and nothing else and had a spontaneous, uncaused, natural origin from a state of chaos equivalent to "nothing" agrees with all the data." and dhw asks: "Do we have all the data? and asks "Do terms like "spontaneous" and "uncaused" represent objective scientific conclusions?" -On this basis one could never arrive at any conclusions on anything! There could always be other data. If dhw was ever on a jury he could never convict anyone of anything.-If one traces back the evolution of the universe to a state in which it appears to have come out of nothing, I think the terms 'spontaneous' and 'uncaused' are perfectly reasonable to use. How else would you describe it?-dhw also dosn't like Stenger's use of the word "expected". His arguments are based on point-of-view invariance leading via Noether's theorem to the laws of conservation of energy and momentum. Given these minimal assumptions, which do not involve anything supernatural, he derives the laws of physics as they are known. The mathematics leads to results in agreement with what is observed in physics. No further hypotheses such as the influence of Gods are needed.-dhw takes the view that "The equations of physics are derived from our observation of the universe and everything in it. It's therefore scarcely surprising that the equations of physics (as we know them) lead to the present cosmos (as we know it)!" This may have been true in the historical sense, but as I've indicated above, many of the equations of physics can now be derived by pure mathematics from simple assumptions. The observations confirm these results.-dhw still wants to know what it was that "went bang". This satirical term is usually taken to refer to the period of "inflation" that occurred after the initial "fluctuation in the void" that began everything.
--
GPJ
Nothing
by Mark , Monday, December 07, 2009, 21:09 (5276 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Stenger: "...a state of chaos equivalent to nothing..." How can nothing and a state of chaos be equivalent? Nothing sounds rather orderly to me. Though, of course, nothing is neither orderly nor chaotic, because it is nothing. This is what Stenger doesn't get. He smuggles something into his nothing.
Nothing
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 08, 2009, 00:15 (5276 days ago) @ Mark
Stenger: "...a state of chaos equivalent to nothing..." > How can nothing and a state of chaos be equivalent? Nothing sounds rather orderly to me. Though, of course, nothing is neither orderly nor chaotic, because it is nothing. This is what Stenger doesn't get. He smuggles something into his nothing.-Thank you Mark. Glad you are still around. One can make math do almost anything. Stenger is a man on an anti-religious mission, trading on his academic career.
Nothing
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 08, 2009, 01:57 (5276 days ago) @ Mark
Stenger: "...a state of chaos equivalent to nothing..." > How can nothing and a state of chaos be equivalent? Nothing sounds rather orderly to me. Though, of course, nothing is neither orderly nor chaotic, because it is nothing. This is what Stenger doesn't get. He smuggles something into his nothing.-Because of all this discussion about starting a universe, I thought I'd look up Guth's first comment in the preface to his book, The Inflationary Universe, 1997, pg. xiii: -"Despite its name, the big bang theory is not a theory of a bang at all. It is really a theory of the aftermath of a bang.......... the standard big bang theory says nothing about what banged, why it banged, or what happened before it banged."
Nothing
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Tuesday, December 08, 2009, 21:10 (5275 days ago) @ Mark
Stenger: "...a state of chaos equivalent to nothing..." > How can nothing and a state of chaos be equivalent? Nothing sounds rather orderly to me. Though, of course, nothing is neither orderly nor chaotic, because it is nothing. This is what Stenger doesn't get. He smuggles something into his nothing.-I quote from Stenger (Quantum Gods p.248): "Let's talk about this 'unphysical region'. Inside this region no measurements can be made. Thus we have zero information about what is inside, which means the inside has maximum entropy ... Thus our universe ... begins in a state of disorder, or total chaos. ... This is real indeterministic chaos." ... "This is simply what you get when you extrapolate the big bang back as far as you can go, the Planck time." ... "a combination of general relativity and quantum mechanics leads us to conclude that this volume was of Planck dimensions and finite energy." ... "Such a volume would be too small to allow any physical quantities to be operationally defined. (that is, to be measurable even in principle) so we can conclude it is a region of maximum entropy." -He continues: "Now, it is often asserted that the universe must have begun with a high degree of order since the second law of thermodynamics would require its entropy or disorder to increase with time. So how could it have begun with maximum entropy? This apparent paradox is accounted for by the expansion of the universe. In any scenario where the univeres expands from Planck dimensions the entropy of the universe will increase with time ... it can be shown that the entropy increase for an expanding relativistic gas is proportional to the radius. On the other hand ... the maximum entropy of any volume is that of a black hole of the same volume. The entropy of a black hole is proportional to its surface area, so it increases as the square of its radius." ... "This leaves an increasing entropy gap in which orderly structures form. In that case, entropy decreases locally as the rest of the universe gains entropy."-This all seems pretty clear to me. If you think some other form of "nothingness" is possible, you are basing this on the ideas of classical continuum physics. A "quantum nothing" is rather different from a "classical nothing".
--
GPJ
Nothing
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 08, 2009, 21:59 (5275 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> I quote from Stenger (Quantum Gods p.248): - A philosohper of physics rebuts Stenger: -http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2009/04/quantum-theology-and-quantum.html-And another from another PH.D. physicist:-http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/SocietalEffects/Critics-Rebuttals/StengerRebuttal/index.cfm-George, you accept his ideas because it gives you cover for your atheism. He is far out and with an agenda. I don't care if he admits it, so what! I am not anti-atheist. Yours is a reasonable position for you. I resent spurious charlatans used in a discussion.
Nothing
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, December 09, 2009, 18:39 (5275 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Wednesday, December 09, 2009, 18:58
Both McCabe and Scharf criticise Stenger for being "a retired physicist". I don't recall anyone ever criticising Bertrand Russell for being "a retired mathematical logician".-McCabe begins his piece with a far worse outright ad hominem insult: "One could be forgiven for assuming, from name alone, that 'Victor Stenger' is either a science-fiction writer from the 1950s, or a porn-star."-Anyone who says that, on the basis solely of someone's name, doesn't deserve any further consideration in my view.-Scharf (who, like all pseuds, emphasises that he has a Ph.D.) has some position, unspecified, in the "Department of Physics, Maharishi University of Management." Not likely that he's going to take any criticism of Transcendental Meditation lying down then!-In his response he writes: "We set the record straight on the teachings and achievements of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and quantum physicist John Hagelin, especially the theory and research behind the Maharishi-Hagelin identity principle, identifying Transcendental Consciousness with the unified field."-He's an out and out "Quantum Spiritualist", which is exactly what Stenger's book is against.-If you are trying tp discredit Stenger, you're going to have to find better witnesses than these.-Edit: I just looked at the reference Mc Cabe gives where he writes: "Stenger's paper demonstrates an ignorance of the relevant literature in the philosophy of physics, some of which is somewhat less enthusiastic about the Hartle-Hawking ansatz..." The link is (surprise, surprise) to a paper by one Gordon McCabe (on the non-peer-reviewed arxiv site)!
--
GPJ
Nothing
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 09, 2009, 19:05 (5275 days ago) @ George Jelliss
Both McCabe and Scharf criticise Stenger for being "a retired physicist". I don't recall anyone ever criticising Bertrand Russell for being "a retired mathematical logician".-As I read them, both are simply describing Stenger as retired. If you referred to me as a retired physician I would not take it as criticism or derisive. It is a simple truth. > > McCabe begins his piece with a far worse outright ad hominem insult: "One could be forgiven for assuming, from name alone, that 'Victor Stenger' is either a science-fiction writer from the 1950s, or a porn-star."-I agree with you that the above ad hominem is uncalled for, but McCabe's other criticisms are right on point. Carefully read them. > > Anyone who says that, on the basis solely of someone's name, doesn't deserve any further consideration in my view.-That is not an excuse for looking at his real criticism. > > If you are trying tp discredit Stenger, you're going to have to find better witnesses than these.-I will. That should be easy.
Nothing
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 09, 2009, 20:35 (5274 days ago) @ David Turell
> > If you are trying tp discredit Stenger, you're going to have to find better witnesses than these. > > I will. That should be easy.-I offer the following; a skeptical skeptic, who does admit he belives in a divine being, Buddhist of sorts, I gather. He feels about Stenger like I do. Remember I met him on line (Metanexus.net) years ago before that institute dismantled it. It had folks like Alvin Plantinga on it. Great learning experience, but Stenger was easy to dislike.-Please follow the links to Stenger. It deconstructs Stenger's sloppiness.-http://www.criticandokardec.com.br/criticizingskepticism.htm -Another link is from a religious site. They have a viewpoint also, but obviously biased, but I think on point: -http://www.skepticalchristian.com/br_godthefailedhypothesis.htm
Nothing
by David Turell , Friday, December 11, 2009, 00:38 (5273 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > If you are trying tp discredit Stenger, you're going to have to find better witnesses than these. > > > > I will. That should be easy.- A further exploration by Google finds many discussions of the New Militant Atheists,including Stenger.- A somewhat favorable review of Stenger's "The New Atheism", but does contain some unfavorable comments and closes with the quote from Sagan below:- http://metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?id=5241&type=book- Let me close with a quote from Carl Sagan: "Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed. A wide range of intermediate positions seems admissible, and considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questioning, courageous and open mind seems to be the essential tool for narrowing the range of our collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of God."— "The Amniotic Universe," Broca's Brain- A negative review by George Ellis of Stenger's, God: A failed hypothesis. Ellis is a mathematician in South Africa. :- http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/27736 -A discussion by Siegel that militant atheists are wrong. A religious viewpoint.- http://www.yuricareport.com/Religion/MilitantAtheistsAreWrong.html -Grinnell, a prof. of cell biology at Texas SW Med School, discusses Intelligible and Intelligent Design partially from the standpoint of quantum complimentarity:- http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/ID/intelligible.html -Discussions of Stenger's Toy Universes by Metanexus members: -http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/3051/Default.aspx -In the following William Grasse, head of Metanexus Institute, has an essay on the suitability of scientist authors (think Stenger, Dennett, Dawkins, et. al.) studying spirituality.-http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/tabid/68/id/9925/Default.aspx