Thank's for that..
I have just looked it up and found this..
A Universe from Nothing Astronomical Society
And looking at this..
A Universe is a Free Lunch | Michio Kaku | Big Think
Last edited:
Alright, right on, resurrection, immortality, the multiverse keeps expanding ... 
_____
<<>> Our Universe May Have Emerged From A Black Hole In A Higher Dimensional Universe
_____
♦ Our universe may have emerged from a black hole in a higher dimensional universe - YouTube
♦ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ro7rprA9EM
_____
<<>> Our Universe May Have Emerged From A Black Hole In A Higher Dimensional Universe
_____
♦ Our universe may have emerged from a black hole in a higher dimensional universe - YouTube
♦ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ro7rprA9EM
Last edited:
This would answer quite a few questions.
So from "Outside" the universe would be what?
(Non existent, un measurable, or a bubble of nothing)
It would be a bit ironic if the universe was a microscopic sparticle in the sea of dark energy..
It would be even stranger if that (or wherever the universe (is/n't) ) was made of nothing as well..
It puts an interesting slant on the Beatles song (he's a real nowhere man, living in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans for nobody).
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
Thank's for that..
I have just looked it up and found this..
A Universe from Nothing Astronomical Society
And looking at this..
A Universe is a Free Lunch | Michio Kaku | Big Think
I do not agree. Something should have separated nothing into.....
you cant separate nothing, for there must be something if a separation ought to occur. I reject the 'creation' assumption.
Its very strange isn't it..it keeps coming up..
The start of something from nothing..
Quote from one of the links..
These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
However would it be the start of nothing from nothing,,
Regards
M. Gregg
Its very strange isn't it..it keeps coming up..
The start of something from nothing..
Quote from one of the links..
These spontaneous births and deaths of so-called “virtual particle” pairs are known as “quantum fluctuations.” Indeed, laboratory experiments have proven that quantum fluctuations occur everywhere, all the time. Virtual particle pairs (such as electrons and positrons) directly affect the energy levels of atoms, and the predicted energy levels disagree with the experimentally measured levels unless quantum fluctuations are taken into account.
However would it be the start of nothing from nothing,
Regards
M. Gregg
Even particle fluctuations prove that there is some continuum supporting these transformations. The fact that we are unable to observe a part of the process does not imply that something was created out of nothing.
This would create an even deeper problem..
Because the last support structure cannot exist and the whole thing collapses like domino's.
Unless its somehow self supporting, but even then it has to be somewhere to exist.
Even if the idea of a supreme being is used it has to exist somewhere..so you are back to the nothing supporting something.
How do we know that the collider isn't creating universes?
Regards
M. Gregg
Attachments
Last edited:
Does it?
Is admitting we can't observe the whole process a problem? I allways thought that admitting you do not know something is the basis for further research...
And if the collider created a new universe, would that be a problem?
Regards,
Edwin
This is a very old problem or question that goes back at least to Anaximander who posited that the arche or ground of the universe was what he called the Boundless or Infinite, a condition of pure indeterminacy (which is nothing in the sense of being no-thing, for the Boundless is beyond all possible reference). The problem comes with trying to explain how determinate existence could arise from a condition of pure indeterminacy, for you seem to require some determinate ground (e.g. a power, activity, 'fulcrum,' and so on) to set the process in motion. Hence most origin theories begin with some determinate condition rather than a condition of pure indeterminacy or nothingness of the kind Anaximander boldly suggested. You also see it in Descartes' famous claim that there must be at least as much reality in the cause as there is in the effect (hence something cannot come from nothing). This is as much a logical as a physical question, for it brings into issue the very nature of what it means to be a logical/rational relation.
I've actually written a couple of papers on this problem, defending a variation of the Cosmogony outlined by C.S. Peirce (as a form of Emergent Evolution at a cosmogonic scale). I actually argue that something can come from nothing as long as you think of nothingness as a condition of pure possibility. It's more of a metaphysical/cosmogonic problem than a cosmological one per se, but still interesting nonetheless.
Put differently the question can be posed as how to account for the existence of asymmetrical conditions (e.g. time, growth, development, and so on) from a symmetrical ground or starting point.
There are plenty of variations on this problem in the history of philosophy and science, but I do find it interesting that some scientists are now beginning to take the idea of something from nothing seriously as a hypothesis deserving of more serious consideration. All I can say is that the idea is not as absurd as it first appears.
I agree its a basis for further research (which I assume is the idea with the collider).
If it created a universe I assume it would be separate from ours so would no be a problem. (We would not be aware of it)
However from a logical point of view if every effect has to have a cause then the answer seems difficult ie there can be no starting point. Something must have existed forever. This is in itself interesting, because it has no support structure (place to exist in). It is the Alfa and Omega of all things and just exists.
It would write its own physics and self create. Forever is a long time, longer than everything in existence, longer than the multiverse and outside of time.
Its a pretty tall order..and a very lonely place to be.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
In principle? Why not? According to what principle? There have been plenty of attempts to establish such an absolute principled limit on the possibility of our knowledge (e.g. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason) , but as far as I am aware such attempts have not quite succeeded in demonstrating what they purport to demonstrate.
Fair enough, but if you mean 'experiment' in the sense that I think you do, namely physical experiment, then it follows that pure mathematics, formal logic, and so on, cannot be sources of knowledge (a position that I for one would question).
I personally think that only logic and mathematics can lead to true and fundamental knowledge.
In science and engineering we have effective theories, which can be useful and accurate, but they are not fundamental.
If you're talking to me, then I don't think I'm confusing the two at all. As I understand the distinction, a scientific theory is a proposed framework for helping to explain certain kinds of empirical phenomena, while a scientific fact is something that is generally regarded as currently indisputable or 'true' (given the conditions that happen to be available for assessing such things).
It seems to me that you may be equating 'theory' with 'scientific theory,' but theory is a broader notion than scientific theory. Scientific theories differ from other kinds of theories (e.g. metaphysical, historical, moral, literary, etc.) in focusing on the explanation of special kinds empirical phenomena that are amenable to the methodologies of the empirical sciences (in the conventional sense of that term). Scientific theories thus have different kinds of special criteria that must be satisfied in order to count as 'scientific' in the modern, conventional sense of that term (and that's fine), but it would be a mistake to equate theory in its general sense with the more specialized forms of scientific theory.
As I understand them, the systems produced in pure mathematics and pure formal logic do not qualify as sciences in the conventional, empiricist sense of that term, and hence are not 'scientific theories' in the usual, conventional sense. I would still maintain, however, that they are sources of knowledge, just not the kinds of knowledge associated with and disclosed by the special, empirical sciences.
I could do no more than spell it out.
I agree completely.
Perhaps I misunderstand Rayma also. He brought up "experiment" but then posts, "...only logic and mathematics can lead to...," which appears contrary.
It seems to me that scientific theory, logic, mathematics, and experiment are all tools used in varying order to acquire scientific knowledge and scientific fact.
I hope this isn't viewed as nitpicking. On this subject I believe these distinctions and omissions are important.
"Universes"? ...Multiverse perhaps, ...the universe is everything, even the other universes.
But what do I know, where did I go, what do we/they know, where did we/they go...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.