Infinity and Kalam

[seer]

If energy could be created or destroyed, then the total amount of energy in the universe would not always be the same.

Why do you assume that? The total air in the perfectly sealed balloon would always remain the same. The law of conservation only applies in a closed system. That tells us nothing about whether energy could be created or not.

[seer]

You are the one promoting Vilenkin, I suggest you read what he said in the link from which I quoted, namely: “the universe is created by quantum tunneling from "nothing", where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical space time”. He is arguing via Quantum Physics NOT Classical Physics, which is where you seem to be coming from.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

Are you saying there is a non classic time and space? Where? And BTW Vilenkin made it clear that there may be no way of actually testing this theory.

Here is my e-mail exchange with Vilenkin.

Hello Mr. Vilenkin, first I really enjoy your You Tube Videos, very informative even for layman like me. I'm in a rather long discussion on this issue - I know you are probably busy but perhaps you can clear something up for us. Is the nothing out of which the universe arose come from a preexisting quantum vacuum or quantum world? Or is it really nothing in the sense of no preexisting quantum vacuum? Is it really nothing in the philosophical sense?

Thanks so much, Jim

It is not easy to translate mathematical equations into prose. This is further complicated by the fact that we only have a partial understanding of quantum gravity.

With these caveats, I would say "nothing" is a quantum state in which there is no macroscopic space, time or matter. We cannot even say that this state existed before the universe popped out into being -- because the notion of "before" requires time. It is certainly not nothing in the philosophical sense. The mathematics this picture is based on relies on the laws of physics, and these laws certainly are not nothing.

Alex V

It seems that the only thing required before the creation event are the laws of physics. Which are immaterial.

[Stoic]

Why do you assume that? The total air in the perfectly sealed balloon would always remain the same. The law of conservation only applies in a closed system. That tells us nothing about whether energy could be created or not.

If energy was created, then there would be more energy. If energy was destroyed, there would be less energy. (Just as if air was created in a sealed balloon, there would be more air in the balloon.)

I don't know why this is so hard.

[Machinist]

It seems that the only thing required before the creation event are the laws of physics. Which are immaterial.

Apparently, there is some other non-classical "sense" in which things can be material.

OK, so what if there is some sort of Mind like quantum plane that's eternal and it stores all the laws of physics? It's not God, its just not material either. its sort of like a Mind, but all it "knows" are the laws of physics? Seer, would that be a satisfying answer to you?

[Machinist]

It makes sense to any materialist: If consciousness can be reduced to physical descriptions, why can't the Universe?

[seer]

If energy was created, then there would be more energy. If energy was destroyed, there would be less energy. (Just as if air was created in a sealed balloon, there would be more air in the balloon.)

I don't know why this is so hard.

No not at all, the air PUT into the balloon is of a specific volume. And that volume would not change since it is a closed system. It can't escape and it is not added to. This would tell us nothing about whether air could be created or not in the first place.

[seer]

Apparently, there is some other non-classical "sense" in which things can be material.

OK, so what if there is some sort of Mind like quantum plane that's eternal and it stores all the laws of physics? It's not God, its just not material either. its sort of like a Mind, but all it "knows" are the laws of physics? Seer, would that be a satisfying answer to you?

But it would have to know more than the laws of physics. It would have to make decisions, at least one - like the decision to create or not.

[Machinist]

But it would have to know more than the laws of physics. It would have to make decisions, at least one - like the decision to create or not.

So we'll throw that one in there as well. It knows the laws of physics (or at least the laws of physics are arranged in some fashion on this Mind like, non-material plane), and it "knows" to create. Although, that would be more like a 0 and a 1...to create and not to create. Or maybe to create, and then to destroy. It wouldn't necessarily be making a decision, but rather springing back and forth.

You'd still be left with an infinite regression of cause and effect. And for me, that's enough to disregard the idea.

[seer]

You'd still be left with an infinite regression of cause and effect. And for me, that's enough to disregard the idea.

Yes...

[Machinist]

Although "to create" is not the term that should be used. I would rather say "manifest".

[Tassman]

Are you saying there is a non classic time and space? Where? And BTW Vilenkin made it clear that there may be no way of actually testing this theory.

It seems that the only thing required before the creation event are the laws of physics. Which are immaterial.

I was merely quoting what Vilenkin said in the Stanford link which I’ve already posted. Namely, “the universe is created by quantum tunneling from "nothing", where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical space time”.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

His argument is based upon ‘Quantum Physics’, which has a mathematical basis and is standard scientific procedure for investigating the behavior of the micro universe of sub-atomic particles and molecules etc. This as opposed to the philosophically based ‘Classical Physics’ which deals with the macro universe of time and space, where you are coming from.

[seer]

I was merely quoting what Vilenkin said in the Stanford link which I’ve already posted. Namely, “the universe is created by quantum tunneling from "nothing", where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical space time”.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

His argument is based upon ‘Quantum Physics’, which has a mathematical basis and is standard scientific procedure for investigating the behavior of the micro universe of sub-atomic particles and molecules etc. This as opposed to the philosophically based ‘Classical Physics’ which deals with the macro universe of time and space, where you are coming from.

Again from our e-mail exchange:

With these caveats, I would say "nothing" is a quantum state in which there is no macroscopic space, time or matter. We cannot even say that this state existed before the universe popped out into being -- because the notion of "before" requires time. It is certainly not nothing in the philosophical sense. The mathematics this picture is based on relies on the laws of physics, and these laws certainly are not nothing.

Alex V

We can not even say that this state existed before the universe popped into being. And the "not nothing" are the laws of physics. No macroscopic space, time or matter...

[Machinist]

"His argument is based upon ‘Quantum Physics’, which has a mathematical basis and is standard scientific procedure for investigating the behavior of the micro universe of sub-atomic particles and molecules etc. This as opposed to the philosophically based ‘Classical Physics’ which deals with the macro universe of time and space, where you are coming from."


Quantum Physics - mathematically based

Classical Physics - philosophically based


This is an interesting distinction.

[Tassman]

We can not even say that this state existed before the universe popped into being. And the "not nothing" are the laws of physics. No macroscopic space, time or matter...

Again, from Vilenkin’s Stanford article: “the universe is created by quantum tunneling from "nothing", where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical space time”. And, as he says, the ‘laws of physics’ require “space/time” to be meaningful.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.452.4332&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[Machinist]

"Again, from Vilenkin’s Stanford article: “the universe is created by quantum tunneling from "nothing", where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical space time”. And, as he says, the ‘laws of physics’ require “space/time” to be meaningful."


This state is not a place and does not exist in time. Hmmm.

Could this state be a Mind?