What was God doing?

[robrecht]

I agree mostly, if you read closely to the language Guth, Vilenkin and others use concerning the nature of greater cosmos beyond our universe it is somewhat hypothetical, and they realize that they cannot at present describe the pre-existent scientific "nothing" that preceded our universe. The view that it is only "literally nothing" is an over statement of what the scientists propose. One agreement is that a set of Natural Laws pre-existed the expansion of our universe. Not all scientists today propose models and hypothesis for origins from this "nothing." Some propose origins that are not dependent on origins from this "nothing," for example: Universes originating from black holes, and modern forms of cyclic universes.

It must be understood that the physics and cosmology of origins is a relatively young science, and the present models and hypothesis are by and large incomplete and tentative.

There is always the warning that the present 'lack of knowledge of natural origins' cannot be concluded that 'Natural origins are not possible' for our universe, all possible universes, nor multi-verses.

It is not at all clear to me from your post what you disagree with me about here. You say that you mostly agree. What specifically did I say that you do not agree with? Nothing in your post above seems to be in disagreement with anything I said.

[robrecht]

The pre-existing substance would be the same substance as that of the forms which emerge from it. Otherwise the emergent forms would still be need said to have come from nothing.

The 'same substance' in what sense exactly?

[JimL]

The 'same substance' in what sense exactly?

energy/matter.

[shunyadragon]

It is not at all clear to me from your post what you disagree with me about here. You say that you mostly agree. What specifically did I say that you do not agree with? Nothing in your post above seems to be in disagreement with anything I said.

There are subtle wordings I do not totally agree with. For example I do not assume nor use words like 'unanswerable,' because what is not answerable at present may be answered at least in part in the future. I do not agree with this statement; 'This is also true in theology, by the way.' I do not consider there to be a parallel here with theology. it is grounded in the Philosophy of Science.

There are things I consider most likely unanswerable such as: the question whether our physical existence is eternal or non-eternal, nor whether it is finite or infinite. There are assumptions in science that the nature of our physical existence is eternal because it works, but it is not necessarily so. Math uses infinities as tools in math for proofs and hypothesis, but there is no assumption that our physical existence is either finite nor infinite, nor can it be proved nor disproved.

[JimL]

Stop Jim, that is not what he is speaking with the zero point energy, he is speaking of what is IN the UNIVERSE and why he says it can be created from nothing. The ONLY requirement is the laws of physics. The out of nothing is the nothing that Lucretius spoke of, that is why he said it would sound strange coming form a physicist. No pre-existing matter, time or space(his words not mine). And you can not have a pre-existing "something" without space or time.

Nothing in this case is not the same nothing that Lucretius or even we normally think of when we speak of nothing, and I think that Vilenkin, for that reason, was wrong to use that term. Like I said nature is a polarity which divided against itself literally equals nothing, or zero point energy, but Lucretius's notion of nothing is not a thing, and so can't be described as a polarity, divided against itself. The universe can't come from Lucretius's notion of nothing, nihil ex nihilo, but it can come from a vacuum of fluctuating zero point energy, which is not really nothing.

[seer]

Nothing in this case is not the same nothing that Lucretius or even we normally think of when we speak of nothing, and I think that Vilenkin, for that reason, was wrong to use that term. Like I said nature is a polarity which divided against itself literally equals nothing, or zero point energy, but Lucretius's notion of nothing is not a thing, and so can't be described as a polarity, divided against itself. The universe can't come from Lucretius's notion of nothing, nihil ex nihilo, but it can come from a vacuum of fluctuating zero point energy, which is not really nothing.

Jim, Vilenkin understands very well what Lucretius' nothing means, and that is exactly what he meant to convey. And he made it clear that it did not need pre-existing time or space. So where does your vacuum exist apart from space or time?

[robrecht]

There are subtle wordings I do not totally agree with. For example I do not assume nor use words like 'unanswerable,' because what is not answerable at present may be answered at least in part in the future. I do not agree with this statement; 'This is also true in theology, by the way.' I do not consider there to be a parallel here with theology. it is grounded in the Philosophy of Science.

There are things I consider most likely unanswerable such as: the question whether our physical existence is eternal or non-eternal, nor whether it is finite or infinite. There are assumptions in science that the nature of our physical existence is eternal because it works, but it is not necessarily so. Math uses infinities as tools in math for proofs and hypothesis, but there is no assumption that our physical existence is either finite nor infinite, nor can it be proved nor disproved.

As a proponent of apophatic theology, you would not agree that, to paraphrase Pauli, 'The best that most of us can hope to achieve in theology is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level.'

[shunyadragon]

As a proponent of apophatic theology, you would not agree that, to paraphrase Pauli, 'The best that most of us can hope to achieve in theology is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level.'

I agree with that for apophatic theology, but I would not make he comparison concerning science.

[Tassman]

I did not quote Vilenkin Tass, I quoted Guth. And no Vilenkin's newer hypothesis has the universe coming from "literally nothing" - his words not mine. The only thing that is needed are the non-physical laws physics. He does not say pre-existing energy. So you are misquoting him again.

It's the same 'Borde, Guth, Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe' link you've posted and re-posted endlessly as though it was the final word on the subject. It is not. Cutting edge science is always a work in progress and all these physicists as well as others, have proposed hypotheses allowing for universes coming from a pre-existing source of energy.

[seer]

It's the same 'Borde, Guth, Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe' link you've posted and re-posted endlessly as though it was the final word on the subject. It is not. Cutting edge science is always a work in progress and all these physicists as well as others, have proposed hypotheses allowing for universes coming from a pre-existing source of energy.

Hey Tass, you were the one who brought up the multiverse. And just because science is a work in progress doesn't mean they have a clue how this universe began, or that they ever will - but feel free to keep your faith...

[robrecht]

It's the same 'Borde, Guth, Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe' link you've posted and re-posted endlessly as though it was the final word on the subject. It is not. Cutting edge science is always a work in progress and all these physicists as well as others, have proposed hypotheses allowing for universes coming from a pre-existing source of energy.

Do you agree or disagree with Pauli's original statement?

[Tassman]

Do you agree or disagree with Pauli's original statement?

When it comes to theology I agree that 'The best that most can hope to achieve is simply to misunderstand at a deeper level.' But we can demonstrably hope for a lot more from science because we can substantiate, verify and falsify our knowledge.

[Tassman]

Hey Tass, you were the one who brought up the multiverse. And just because science is a work in progress doesn't mean they have a clue how this universe began, or that they ever will - but feel free to keep your faith...

[seer]

Sorry Tass, you can cry science all day, you got nothing.

[JimL]

Jim, Vilenkin understands very well what Lucretius' nothing means, and that is exactly what he meant to convey. And he made it clear that it did not need pre-existing time or space. So where does your vacuum exist apart from space or time?

External to our particular universe. My guess is that the universe itself, I call it the Cosmos to differentiate it from spacetimes, is infinite, that it isn't space itself that is created, that it is spacetime universes that are, and that they are the result of vacuum fluctuations within space itself, within the Greater Cosmos. I know, that differs from Vilenkins hypothesis where there is no space to begin with, but Vilenkin doesn't know anymore than I do what if anything our universe is expanding into. It could be that our universe is just an expanding part of an infinite space and that it is expanding due to the so called big bang resulting from random fluctuations. Whenever I read someone explaining "a universe from nothing" they never seem to get to the nothing part, it always begins with a fluctuation, and to me a fluctuation is definitive of "something."