I think the best way to make progress toward understanding the nature of reality and the physical universe is by trying to answer the question that underlies it all "Why is there something that nothing?" as well as the subsequent question "What is the nature of the most fundamental something?". This is metaphysics. Then, because:
1. Metaphysics is the study of existence and the nature of existent entities.
2. The universe exists and is made of existent entities.
3. Physics is the study of the universe.
4. The laws of physics are theoretically derivable from the principles of
metaphysics and their use in deriving the properties of fundamental
existent entities.
I think this metaphysics-to-physics approach, while difficult to do, is logically undeniable; although, I'm not an academic logician So, using metaphysics-derived properties of the most fundamental existent entities, one can build a model of the early universe, see if that model matches observations and see if it can make testable predictions that also match observations. This is the scientific method and I think it may be a faster approach to getting a deeper understanding the the universe than either physics or philosophy alone. While this is a difficult and time-consuming method, so are physics and philosophy and they don't seem to be making much progress either.
In regard to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", I think that to ever get an intellectually satisfying answer, we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something". If any of the other existing solution were satisfying, we wouldn't still be asking the question. An analogous way of saying that you start with "nothing" is by saying you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"). We know you can't change a 0 into a 1 (ex nihilo nihil fit), so the only way you can go from the 0 to the 1 is if somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface. That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing". But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". That is the situation we previously, and incorrectly, thought of as "nothing" is actually an existent entity, or a "something". If anyone's interested, a possible mechanism for how this could be is at: https://philpapers.org/rec/GRAPST-4
view post as summary
Roger Granet replied on Jun. 7, 2022 @ 17:17 GMT
1. In regards to:
"Of course, once you define nothing as something, it no longer is nothing.In other
words, there is no meaning to the concept of nothing because we use our reasoning
to imagine nothing... as something."
The mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself in which no minds would be there are two different things. So, our imagining and...
view entire post
1. In regards to:
"Of course, once you define nothing as something, it no longer is nothing.In other
words, there is no meaning to the concept of nothing because we use our reasoning
to imagine nothing... as something."
The mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself in which no minds would be there are two different things. So, our imagining and talking about "nothing" using our reasoning have no impact on whether or not "nothing" is a thing or isn't.
I suggest that a thing exists if it's a grouping that ties stuff together into a new unit whole and existent entity. Think of the grouping of ink and paper atoms together into a new existent entity called a book, or the grouping together of individual elements into a new existent entity called a set. Then, only once you get rid of all things normally thought of as existing, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this, the resulting situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety. A completely defined situation/the all/entirety is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.
So, even though this says that the situation we used to think of as "nothing" is actually a "something", it at least provides a mechanism for why this is so. And, one can try and figure out the properties of the existent entity we used to call "nothing", and then use that to try and figure out how the universe comes from it. That's what I mean by a metaphysics-to-physics approach.
2. In regard to
"The nihilism and relative morality that come out of the concept of nothing can
have very undesirable outcomes"
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with morality. If talking about nothing and something lead to undesirable moral outcomes, there are other issues going on that have nothing to do with this.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 7, 2022 @ 21:05 GMT
We can go down this funnel if you really want to... and have lots of company. So now you want to redefine your nothing as mostly nothing, not completely nothing.
Ok. A thing exists and then you imagine it does not exist because it is now nothing. Where did it go?
Values are of course why we want to know anything in the first place. Without values, i.e., with nihilism, there is no longer any meaning to wanting to know anything at all... much less nothing...
report post as inappropriate
Roger Granet replied on Jun. 7, 2022 @ 21:16 GMT
I don't mind at all if you and others want to talk about morals and values, but that's not what my post was about. So, you do you.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 7, 2022 @ 21:56 GMT
Your post was all about values and how you value understanding the nature of reality and the physical universe. Now you don't care?
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Jun. 7, 2022 @ 23:26 GMT
Hello all.
It would not be a very successful species that had an instinct for survival which would accept any notion of nonbeing. From below consciousness, the mind rebels against an idea of nothingness.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 8, 2022 @ 08:16 GMT
Hello, happy to see you again John. I agree Roger with what tell Steve A and John too , and it is true that your post was about values and how we value this understanding of the reality. Regards
report post as inappropriate
Roger Granet replied on Jun. 8, 2022 @ 18:45 GMT
Of course, I value understanding reality. That's the reason we're all at this site. But the wording in the first comment was "relative morality". As you know, "values" and especially the original words "relative morality" usually mean personal values and morality. I value understanding reality, but I have values and morals. So, it's important to be careful in your wording when you're talking about someone's "values" and "morals". Second, it was said that the concept of nothing can have very undesirable outcomes. In order to think about why something is here instead of nothing, you have to consider nothing. Saying one area of metaphysical thought can lead to undesirable relative morality and outcomes seems odd to me. Finally, the only point I was trying to make in this whole, crazy thread was that I think metaphysical thinking about "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a good way to understand reality, which as even the administrator that posted this said is one of the goals of FQXi.
"Foundational Questions Institute supports new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality, but unlikely to be supported by conventional sources."
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 9, 2022 @ 20:03 GMT
Of course... I knew that you valued understanding reality. However, you also seem to believe that your values came from nothing and I argue that you values came from how you were raised, your education, your civilization, and its Grand Narratives.
Of course, what you deny is that your values are a secular Religion not unlike trad Religion. That is, Religion is how you get your values because Science is no help at all for values. Science has measurements and models but has no way to value a better model. You can value a model and somehow you believe that nothing is a good starting place for values.
I am simply arguing that the relative morality and nihilism of nothing can have very undesirable outcomes...
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 9, 2022 @ 20:46 GMT
we are all different in ideologies,philosophies, values, moralities.....it is due to many parameters like you told Steve A, the education, the psychology, the adaptation, the environments...and after we make our own conclusions but a sure thing is that we don t know this philosophical origin, that said I am persuaded that this infinite energy is not nothing but is conscious , it is reasuring in fact to beleive in this, the nothing is the nothing , it does not simply exist and us we exist and this energy too exists and transforms this energy even to create this reality, so the nothing is in fact just a word invencted wich does not exist at my humble opinion. Regards
report post as inappropriate
Roger Granet replied on Jun. 9, 2022 @ 21:07 GMT
Hi. No, I don't think my values came from nothing. I didn't say that, but it was just a misunderstanding. Like most people, I believe they came from my parents, society, etc.
What I was getting at is that I think what we used to think of as “nothing” is not, in fact, “nothing” but is actually a physically existent entity. That is, thinking of it as “nothing” was incorrect. Then, we can figure out the properties of this existent entity and use it to build a physical model of the early universe. If it matches observations and can make testable predictions that match observations, this provides evidence for the idea. Evidence is how science values models, and I agree with that.
Anyways, it sounds like it was just a misunderstanding, so no harm done.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 10, 2022 @ 09:00 GMT
Hi Roger, I understand, don t worry . Thanks for sharing your thoughts . Like I am curious lol could you tell me mmore about what is for you the philosophical origin of the universe, me I beleive a little bit like einstein in a god of spinoza in respecting the determinism of laws of nature. They were numerous and the best the thinkers thinking in a god with rationalism if I can say,it seems that we need something coding and transforming the Energy, it d be odd to come from a mathematical accident from a kind of infinite energy not conscious in fact, regards
report post as inappropriate
Steve Agnew replied on Jun. 10, 2022 @ 16:21 GMT
I agree completely that since QED depends on an infinite sea of virtual vacuum oscillators, QED makes an absolute vacuum into something. That is exactly why the books about something from nothing are simply word play.
In fact, the vacuum oscillators are equivalent to finite aether of of a very large number of particles, not an infinity. Since Science does not pick any winners, though, it is also true that we cannot depend on Science for the very values that make Science important. That is, we cannot make Science into a secular Religion, a Scientism, and we must depend on other truths besides Science truths.
Many in Science talk about the ultimate meaningless of the universe without any purpose. They even write PH.D.'s andwhole books about that lack of any meaning and purpose. Ironically, these people get their own meaning and purpose by making sensitive and anxious people even more depressed and suicidal. This is an undesirable outcome of the nothing at all...
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 10, 2022 @ 16:31 GMT
Hi Steve A, we return still about these limitations , we must just accept the proved things. It is dangerous to affirm unknowns at my humble opinion, it is even like an extremist comportment wanting to convice the people aout assumptions, the extremist religious make the same.
There are the proved laws , axions, equations and there are the assumptions. It is simply an evidence, a general rational thinker don t affirm assumptions, we don t know all the truths, we don t know this philosophical origin of the universe, we don t know the real cause of our quantum mechanics, we don t know the foundamental objects. Even eisntein doubted about the photons like primary essence and this GR.
The things that we know,measure, observe are emergent properties of causes that we sinmply don t really know. The vaccuum, we don t know, the QED it is just an emergent property, this and that, we must accept these limitations in knowledges . It is even a kind of wisdom .
The aether we don t know, the vacuum oscillators it is the same we don t know . The problem is really when we affirm assumptions like facts proved . Friendly
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 10, 2022 @ 17:03 GMT
That said Steve A, we have different models and we see differently this philosophy of origin, but your vaccuum oscillators and my vaccum considering the main codes of the DE could converge with the motions, rotations oscillations of these spherical volumes, there are relevant roads to analyse in considering the main codes of this vacuum permitting the properties of our reality .
The difference is just about the foundamental objects and about the fact that I consider the DM and DE superimposed to these photons, but there are ways interesting to extrapolate .The real secret is to find this philosophy and these main informations .
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 10, 2022 @ 19:55 GMT
Imagine that this vacuum of the DE so is made of 3D spheres and that each particle of DE is a serie of spheres , I have considered that these series for a photon like for a particle of cold DM had the same number than the comsological series of spheres, oddly it is the dirac large number, now imagine that the central sphere is the biggest volume, and after apply this serie in decreasing the volumes , see that this superfluidity appears and that a kind of space between spheres dispappears, all is in contact.
Now imagine that the vacuum made of these series possess the main code and now imagine so the motions oscillations of these spheres of this vacuum for the fluctuations and probablities......
Now imagine that this DE so possessing the main informations have its fields and is antigravitational for example and let s extrapolate spectrum of Energies.
Now imagine the tensors, symmeties, energies in considering so that these series of DE encode the cold dark matter and the photons to create so the standard model and the QFT and other fields , the axions being one field added with this cold DM , the higgs an other, the QG an other, and probably one for the ekectromagnetism too and let s consider that all this isunder the main field of this DE and let s consider that the antimatter too is in this logic . So we have 9 fields mainly and the field of the DE probably can be fractalised too in function of its informations. The hamiltonian and lagrangian can be extrapolated and we can rank the groups, subgroups with different athematical tools, maybe the lie groupos can be relevant and this E8 for the ranking more the non associativity and non commutativity.
The relevance for this system like a result of 3 systems free cosmologically speaking merging is to consider that the volumes don t change and the numer of the serie too does not change, of course I am not sure about this but it can be relevant to consider this.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 10, 2022 @ 20:01 GMT
Now I have thought too about the deformations of these spherical volumes and maybe it is just a question of motions and codes of this DE , so the symplectomorphisms preserving the volumes can be applied at specific topologies and for specif spheres . It is maybe the secret of this evolution, chemistry and biology for the changes of volumes,
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 11, 2022 @ 11:08 GMT
This Scalar field of the DE Steve A is a key for all at my humble opinion, the higgs field appear due to this field with the photons and the cold dark matter encoded and permit so a part of the mass for the weak interaction, this scalar field so in logic permit an other mechanism with the same logic for the nuclear forces and an other for the electromagnetism and one too for the quantum...
view entire post
This Scalar field of the DE Steve A is a key for all at my humble opinion, the higgs field appear due to this field with the photons and the cold dark matter encoded and permit so a part of the mass for the weak interaction, this scalar field so in logic permit an other mechanism with the same logic for the nuclear forces and an other for the electromagnetism and one too for the quantum gravitation, that is why we have 9 fields generally and a fith force. The scalar field of the DE possessing so the main informations permits to the other fields to have their specific properties and so with these photons and cold dark matter encoded , they permit the standard model and so the quantum mechanics. The QFT is just a part of this SM due to bosonic fields due simply to the photons , but we must superimpose other fields and particles.
The revolution for the physics is now to understand these fields and mechanisms under the main scalar feild of this DE, wich is different in fact for each atoms and permit the chemistry, the biology, the evolution and even we can go farer for the hard problem of consciousness wich implies deep philosophical questions.
In fact in this reasoning all is balanced for our SM , gravitation, electromagnetism, antigravitation, like is balanced, the fermions, the bosons, the particles, the antiparticles, the fields, the waves, the mass.
So indeed the vacuum is the secret and possess the main codes and seems from this DE possessing the main informations wich is maybe just a question of antigravitational codes and motions oscillations of these 3D spherical volumes. More probably deep unknowns about this DE and what it is really considering the main informations.
That is why we have my intuitive equation too for the matter energy equivalence improving the equation of einstein wich is not suffient simply because it does not consider this DM and DE but just photons and this GR ands SR. That implies so a different general philosophical reasoning about the origin of the universe where in fact the fields and partifcles are linked in this superfluidity.
view post as summary
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 11, 2022 @ 11:54 GMT
Philosophically speaking this main general field of the DE is fascinating , it is made of particles, these series of spheres in my model and it is generally the same but not in the details considering the evolution and these atoms and its diversity and this chemistry and this biology evolving. It is this the main interest, to know this main general field and after to know all its details in function of what we analyse. It is a new revo9lutionary road for our physics. Thes photons , the EFE, the GR, the SR, the QFT known ,our actual QM, all this is just a paqrt of the problem , the photons were the easiest to observe and this GR too , and measure too , but now we are arrived if my reasoning is correct at a new relevant road more difficult to measure, observe and experiment, the interactions, the fields , the properties of particles are more difficult , we must find new experiemnts and new methods to find and prove all this. But there are ways , it is sure, they interact these new parameters very weakly and at other topologies but they are there and the real interaest is to find these mechanisms.
Like I said the philosophy is totally different than just photons and this GR alone like cause of our SM, of course this GR and photons are a piece of the puzzle , but it is just that they are not the only one piece and that now they imply confusions and problems , they cannot indeed solve our deepest unknowns and that proves that we must add these two other main general essences of the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 12, 2022 @ 14:03 GMT
The main intrest now is to find how acts this scalar main field for our quantum mechanics. So we can of course utilise the numbers for the points in space . That is why I have thougt about 4 E8 and in considering the series of spheres. So like the 3 series merge to create this SM ,now the aim is to find the partitions.
So the vectorial and tensorial fields can be extrapolated. The vectorial fields them shall permit the electromagnetic and gravitational fields and the tensorial fields shall permit for example the deformations that I explained with probably the motions, velocities , rotations of these 3D spherical volumes. We don t need really extradiemnsions but just tensors in 3D for these Spheres.
So that will permit to rank all these fields and like I explained we have 1 main scalar field for this DE possessing the main codes and after we have the 3 fields knows and forces , and we explain this quantum gravitation with the reasoning that I explained and we consider the 4 other fields due to this DM encoded.That is why we have 9 mains fields but with this scalar field of the DE which can be developped and analysed deeper because idderent probably in function of matters.See that the synmmetries of gauge and a kind of GUT appear.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 12, 2022 @ 14:17 GMT
of course it is about too the vector spherical harmonics , the spinor spherical harmonics and the sherical scalar functions now for all this puzzle with the different volumes and their motions oscillations. It is the meaning of the tool that I have invencted the spherical geometrical topological algebras. I need help to develop all this. The relevance like I said is that if the 3 systems merge to create this standard model, this baryonic matter and thet the volumes of series don t change and tht the finite number of series dont change but the density changes , so it becomes relevant considering their motions, rotations, oscillations .....
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 14, 2022 @ 12:51 GMT
This reasoning can be applied for the hard problem of consciousness and can be correlated with the works of penrose and Hameroff about the collapsing and the nature of gravity too.And of course we arrive at these deep philosophical unknowns where we must superimpose these deeper fields.....
report post as inappropriate
hide replies