I would assume he's asking us to ponder the original 'motive' for the existence of all that there is.
Many people believe that God created everything. Many believe that it was a 'big bang'. Many believe something in between.
And yet, all of these still leave an underlying question unanswered: What preceded that to cause it to happen?
If God is the answer to the 'first motive', then what was the motive predating Him?
If everything came to being from a big bang, then what caused that? The notion that we're just "here by chance" is rather unscientific, because a strictly secular view of the universe precludes any possibility of 'chance'. Indeed, the most mundane and scientific view possible would require an entirely deterministic universe.
If everything is deterministic, then nothing can happen without a motive (humourously plunging us back to 'square one', as it were, stuck with the same questions that confuzzled the ancient Greeks). It means that even the Big Bang had to have a driving force.
And, naturally, if the universe isn't strictly deterministic, then that just means it's even harder to understand, which doesn't help much either. :D
Incidentally, I haven't got an answer to the question. That mini-essay was just my guess as to what he's asking. :D
(Incidentally, it isn't often that you see the words 'deterministic' and 'confuzzled' in the same sentence, eh? :D )
Whoa, Earl you overdo those emoticons don't you :P
My question what is nothing? Empty lifeless space is still something, personally I can't even imagine nothing without soon realizing that even nothing is something.
It reminds me of this question a physics forum got which was cold and dark basically don't exist because they are just the absence of light/heat not the opposite.
Ya Earl, that's about right. Darkroot, I think you answered your question right? Nothingness is the absence of all things. Dark, as in the absence of any light, cold, as in the absence of any movement or energy, quiet, absent of any sound, etc. Empty space is not something. The concept of it is a thing in our head, but what the concept is describing is the lack of all things, literally no thing. Sure, air is something because there are particles that make up air. But empty space, meaning no particles, no gas, no anything is nothingness.
So what is the reason or motive as to why there is anything at all rather just cold, dark, quiet, endless empty space?
Well, I know most people would think this is "crazy" and "unscientific," but I honestly believe in this conspiratory, well, belief: We all see the world completely differently. What I call "blue" might be what Earl calls "red." The smell of what I call chocolate chip cookies maybe what Steve calls the smell of a dumpster full of sweaty socks. Same with taste.
I'm sorry, I know this is somewhat off-topic, but I thought it had someplace here.
As for the ACTUAL question, I know it's not a completely logical answer, but I believe that there was simply the big bang.
The reason I think it could just "happen" is because the chances of it happening are 1 to NEARLY infiinty, and that just happened to be the one that happened.
That's my tidbit.
Ah, but there's the rub. (Ignoring the fact that there's no such thing as 'nearly infinity') How can there be any probability of the seemingly impossible?
For example, matter can be neither created nor destroyed, right? So, if I were to tell you that I had somehow found a way to create matter from nothing, you'd be rather skeptical. And yet, if I tell you that it not only happened, but happened spontaneously, without even a cause, it's somehow more plausible? :D
Which isn't to say it shouldn't be believed. The two points I think are important to remember are that:
1. It still leaves something rather significant to be explained.
2. It's still something that we take on 'faith'.
I suppose that's what's always amused me with people who look down upon people with religions (not talking about anyone here): everybody takes the vast majority of their lives on faith. Their beliefs, their experiences, their memories. They simply accept it all. By and large, that's for the best, because we'd never accomplish a thing if we were constantly doubting absolutely every aspect of our existence. And yet, I think it's helpful, every now and then, to remember that we still do it.
BTW Ethan, I can't remember how old you are, but I don't think you're in university yet, right? When you are, you should consider taking a few AI courses. I have a feeling you'd find Artificial Neural Networks fascinating. :)
Even when given the same sets of inputs, different neural nets can yield the same basic results (classification, etc), and yet through entirely different network structures. (That is, for example, two networks could both identify that an image of the letter F are 'F', but would process that fact in entirely different ways)
@Earl I'm actually not even 13 yet. I just wonder a lot about conspiracies and Matrix-like artificial realities and false interpretations.
Thanks for reccomending the course though! I'll make a digital note of it and keep it in mind. I really do love the philosophical and yet scientific debates.
@Darkroot "My question what is nothing? Empty lifeless space is still something,"
I ask, how can nothingness exist if there is no one to witness it?
I'm sticking with this theory. Most plausible....P.S. Yes I am Atheist but I follow this explanation due to logic and common sense.
The Earth was created 4.54 billion years ago when part of the Sun's accretion disc agglomerated into a spherical body. At that time, shortly after the birth of the Sun itself, the solar system's matter was much more scattered around, in the form of asteroids and dust rather than planets. This "matter cloud" has been called a Bok globule, and these globules have been observed in other parts of the Galaxy. Scientists have determined the age of the Earth relatively precisely using isotope dating of the world's oldest rocks.
It is not known precisely what mechanism caused the precursor of the solar system, a gaseous nebulae, to form into the Sun and its attendant accretion disc. It may have been shockwaves from a nearby supernova, or simple gravitational collapse due to a threshold density. Whatever the cause, when enough density gathered in the center of the gas cloud, it ignited to become the Sun. The resulting heat banished volatiles (materials with low melting points) to the outer solar system, while leaving rocky bodies, like the Earth, Mercury, Venus, and Mars, in the inner solar system, where they could grow.
The early creation of the Earth was not so smooth, a series of events characterized by massive impacts. Due to energy leftover from the gravitational collapse that formed the Earth, the surface would have initially been a magma ocean until it slowly cooled down. Shortly after the formation of the Earth, the planet was impacted by a Mars-sized body called Theia which formed in a Lagrange point (point of gravitational equilibrium) in the Earth's orbit but not at the exact same place. Over a period of time, orbital oscillations caused Theia to impact the Earth, ejecting many gigatons of material which agglomerated to form the Moon.
After the formation of the Moon, which also had a magma ocean for millions of years, both the Earth and the Moon were heavily bombarded by asteroids and comets in a series of events known as the Late Heavy Bombardment. This extensive bombardment helped deliver volatiles, like water, to the Earth's surface, and played a role in the creation of the oceans. Most of the craters on the Moon today were formed during this heavy bombardment.
I think people are confused by the complexity and depth with the original question. I will try to make it more clear. If we work on the fact that "nothing" is just the opposite of something, and not some un-understandable label for true "nothingness". The the question is why are there (M-theory) membranes. Which are really just energy. So there "real" question why there is energy?
@ethanrule, it sounds like you're talking about an extreme form of relativism, that everything is completely relative to the individual. It's related in the sense that it's philosophical. :)
As far as the big bang, are you talking about something comes from nothing (there's lots of interpretations of what it means)? You're saying it's 1 in a near infinity chance that it could happen, so you're basically saying it's highly improbable but still possible. I agree with you about the idea that if something is even remotely possible, no matter how improbable, that it could still happen due to that tiny possibility. But, how do we know it really is possible at all for something to come from nothing? Maybe the probability is actually 0.
@Earl, looks like you pretty much went where I was going. :) It does amaze me that people accept that you can't create something from nothing currently, but that someone this was possible a long time ago. (QM does suggest that something can come from nothing, but I don't agree with that particular interpretation. :D)
I agree that life is so full of uncertainty. Every rational argument relies at its core on unsupported beliefs (axioms). It's humbling to acknowledge this, but still important to question which things we should accept as axiomatic and which should be tossed out.
@darkbluemullet, nothingness doesn't exist. It is non-existance (or better put, no thing existing). It doesn't require anyone to observe that no thing exists in order for it to be true that no thing exists. Actually, it requires that no observer exists. Obviously without an observer there wouldn't be anyone to have knowledge of whether or not there is anything existing, but we existing creatures can still ponder the state of no thing existing.
As far as that creation of the earth bit, did you just roll that off the topic of your head? ;)
For me, the correct answer is "not applicable". I'll try to explain.
To say that God created the universe doesn't answer the question, because God is something. That's like saying "I created this sandwich" as an answer to the question. All of it is somethingness and I want to know why there is anything, regardless of its properties or form, natural or supernatural.
To say something comes from nothing, means that the nothingness had the potential to give rise to something. If it did not have the potential for somethingness to come out of it, then there would have always just been nothingness forever and ever, amen. However, potential, regardless of the form it takes, is something. Therefore, it seems very clear to me that something cannot come from nothing. Perhaps matter and energy can arise from darkness, but I would not call the darkness nothingness, because there was something there with potential to give rise to something.
Therefore, I've concluded that there must always have been something. Some might suggest there was nothing before the big bang, but I do not agree. The big bang might have annihilated any evidence of what could have come before, but the lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. We basically have no argument on whether or not there was anything before the big bang, except the one I made above which pushes me to think there was always something.
This means that every effect has its cause, going back infinitely with no beginning point. Finite time segments are something only fragile life forms require to make sense of things. The universe doesn't require anything to have a beginning or an end. I don't see any reason to believe that there even could have been a beginning to existence itself. As long as things run their course the way they do currently, time and existence is already infinite in the forward direction, so why couldn't it be infinite in both directions? It may not seem intuitive, but neither does something coming from nothing so intuition doesn't really tell us a whole lot about this sort of thing.
If this is true, then the question "why is there something" has no application. When there is a transition from a proposition changing it's boolean truth value (maybe "sandwich exists" going from false to true), then we have the right to ask why it is true. In essence, we are really inquiring about why or how the event occurred at the moment it began to exist. We are asking what caused the transitional phase from sandwich not existing to it existing, or how that transitional phase can be broken down into a smaller sequence of events. When I say "because I made it", I'm explaining the origination process of the sandwich's state of existence. However, if sandwich (or somethingness, as the case may be) has always existed, then to ask "Why is there something?" is really asking "What caused the somethingness to transition into existence from nothingness?" However, if such an event never took place, then the question doesn't really apply.
So IMO the correct answer to the question is "not applicable". This might sound evasive, but I don't think it is. It's like if you ask me, "Steve, why are you a woman?", what should the correct answer be? "Umm, I'm not." The answer is not applicable because the question does not correctly apply to me. Similarly, the question of "why is there something" does not correctly apply to somethingness, because there was never not something.
I mentioned that every effect has a cause, so why doesn't somethingness have a cause? Because somethingness is not an effect (ie an event), but a brute fact of reality that is and always has been true. It is not the result of anything, but just the way it is.
"Similarly, the question of "why is there something" does not correctly apply to somethingness, because there was never not something."
Spot on! I think you nailed it there. Even if we wrong in saying that, it could never be proved otherwise, but the probability that there was always "something" is most likely true and the most understandable.
This forum gets heavy sometimes... I love it...P.S. WHERE'S MY F%C*I&G GAME?? >:(
Some scientists believe that the universe will end with everything being sucked and crashed into each other. Maybe this has already happened and was what we call the Big Bang: A previous universe collapsing and imploding, thereby creating a new universe. If that is correct, then it could explain how "something" come to existence. Still, it leads us back to universes ending beginning and ending infinitely. Like Steve said, something must have existed infinitely.
Our universe == http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_%28M-Theory%29
here is what I think. There isnt a beggening nor an end its just a cycle because if it did had a start then what caused the start? Ill give you an example. Everything has a magnetic attraction depending on how big it is, and in space there is like one billion million trillion jillion galaxies (or maybe infinite) on the whole universe. Every galaxy goes through something I like to call Giant clash. It consists on a galaxy that has a close neighbor (like our galaxy and andromeda) They slowly pull each together and eventually clash. during that clash almost all the planets and stars the galaxies had crash and are destroyed. turning to the original form of all the planets, DUST after many years the dust pulls itself together forming new planets and new galaxies. Eventually they clash again. See where this is going? and who knows? for all that we THINK we consider ourselves normal size while we consider all the planets and galaxies way bigger than us. But maybe we are so small that the planets accually may BE dust.
This is just my theory.
Wow first post were I dont joke.
Opps I already did. :P
@Spookspon it's mostly empty in a galaxy and mostly everything will go past each other. The the two black holes in the center of our galaxy will merge. Right now all the galaxy's are getting farther away from each other and supposedly the universe it getting larger, faster then the speed of light. There might be 11 dimensions constraint to two "membranes" that cause the big big every time they intersect. These membranes would be multidimensional. They're might be more membranes with universe will their own laws of physics or our dimensions might have different laws. There is no answer there will never be. Only more questions.
In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.
Uranus and Gaia had many children together and eventually they had grandchildren. Some of their children become afraid of the power of their children. Kronus, in an effort to protect himself, swallowed his children when they were still infants. However, his wife Rhea hid their youngest child. She gave him a rock wrapped in swaddling clothes, which he swallowed, thinking it was his son.
Once the child, Zeus, had reached manhood his mother instructed him on how to trick his father to give up his brothers and sisters. Once this was accomplished the children fought a mighty war against their father. After much fighting the younger generation won. With Zeus as their leader, they began to furnish Gaia with life and Uranus with stars.
You must log in to post.