something from nothing?

[Parshvik Chintan]

the great secret of brahman is going from 0 to 1

0=1-1

out of zero, we can divide a positive and a negative. yin and yang.

this can be replicated on an infinite scale

0=2-2
0=3-3
...

So, everything is basically coming and going. Take, for example, sound. If you listen to sound and slow the sound down, just as when you look with a magnifying glass you find that solid things are full of holes, when you magnify sound you find it is full of silences. Sound is sound-silence. There is no such thing as pure sound, just as there is no such thing as pure something---something always goes together with nothing. Solids are always found in spaces, and no spaces are found except where there are solids. You might imagine there being a space without any solid in it, but you will never, never encounter one, because you will be there in the form of a solid to find out about it. They go together, these things, solid and space. The positive and the negative and the "here we are and here we aren't" all go together in the same way, like the back and front of a coin. You can't have a coin that has a back and no front.

 

[gibran2]

Something from nothing is a logical impossibility.

For something to arise out of nothing implies that nothing has “creative potential”, but if nothing has creative potential, then it really isn’t nothing – it’s something with, at the very least, creative potential.

 

[hixidom]

In terms of physics, something comes from nothing all the time. A positron and electron can spontaneously be created. The net charge of the system is still 0. The net mass, however, is not.

I wouldn't say it's a logical impossibility either. Even if it is, I don't see why truth can't exist outside the realm of human logic, not that that could ever be proven logically. On the other hand, that logic leads to truth cannot be logically proven either (not without circular reasoning, at least)

Another question (which may be related) that I think is equally, if not more, challenging: Is nothing something?

 

[gibran2]

In terms of physics, something comes from nothing all the time. A positron and electron can spontaneously be created. The net charge of the system is still 0. The net mass, however, is not.

I wouldn't say it's a logical impossibility either. Even if it is, I don't see why truth can't exist outside the realm of human logic, not that that could ever be proven logically. On the other hand, that logic leads to truth cannot be logically proven either (not without circular reasoning, at least)

Another question (which may be related) that I think is equally, if not more, challenging: Is nothing something?

I accept the idea that a physical “something” can arise out of a physical “nothing”, but my understanding of “something” is that it need not be physical, at least as we define it.

You say that a positron and electron can spontaneously be created. This is a good example of the physical creation of something out of the absence of physical material.

Yet the capacity for spontaneous creation is something. It’s obviously not physical, but it most certainly is something. Without the capacity for spontaneous creation, positrons and electrons would not be spontaneously created.

It’s not a question of “human” logic. It’s a simple fact. If something can be created, apparently out of nothing, then the capacity for the creation of that something must exist. I’m claiming that the capacity for spontaneous creation is something.

 

[Vodsel]

There does not seem to be such a thing as "physical nothingness".

"Nothing" and "Something", when corresponded with 0 and 1, become mathematical abstractions. Concepts that can be used in a macro-cosmic level, a statistic level, but become completely diffuse at quantum levels.

If you take physics and equal something/nothing to mass/no mass, the current model says that matter is simply a fluctuation in the quantum void. Most of the mass comes from virtual particles.

The Higgs field is also thought to make a small contribution, giving mass to individual quarks as well as to electrons and some other particles. The Higgs field creates mass out of the quantum vacuum too, in the form of virtual Higgs bosons. So if the LHC confirms that the Higgs exists, it will mean all reality is virtual.

Matter seems to show this strange anti-intuitive property that you might call "tendency to exist".

The "something from nothing" debate won't be addressed properly from particle physics, IMO. Philosophy, with all the burden of language, can be more productive... so good choice of subforum.

 

[daedaloops]

gibran2 I completely agree with you that the potential to create alone makes "nothing" into "something", and actually I agree with pretty much everything you write here on the nexus, so I have a hell of a lot of respect for you...

But this is probably the first time I've seen you say something which I wanted to comment on:

It’s not a question of “human” logic. It’s a simple fact.

It IS actually a question of human logic, because everytime humans debate about something all they have is human logic. Whenever someone opens their mouth or writes some text, we're dealing with human logic. And that is a simple fact. And because I'm a human too, the fact that I say it's a fact doesn't really mean anything, because it arises from my human logic. So whenever someone mentions the word "fact", it's really a subjective fact, not an objective fact. (sometimes they're really skillfully disguised as objective facts, so be vigilant..)

So to get back on the original topic with my human logic, when you have a concept like "nothing" and then you compare it to a concept like "0", you're already making a huge leap, because mathematics is a human invention in which 0 is just a tool to imply a lack of quantity. When you're talking about an absolute "nothing", it's .. well it's the biggest irony in the human language because it can't be talked about without making it into a "something". Like, here's my best attempt to talk about "nothing" and it goes like this: " " .. But even that was something, so it's impossible to talk or think about *that thing* without assigning it into a concept like "nothing", and a concept is "something".

The difference of 0 and "nothing" is the same as ∞ and "infinity", although there doesn't appear to be a difference at first, the point is that 0 and ∞ (and everything in between) were created as superficial tools for humans to play around with, but when you use the actual words like "nothing" and "infinity" it usually means that you really want to get to the bottom of their meanings. Which is impossible in this human form.

So you can't just calculate the meaning of life out of a human invention like mathematics or logic, but you can use it as a clever way to demonstrate things when you want to talk about your perspective on the human experience, which was exactly what Alan Watts was doing in the quotes of the OP.

And, to answer the question "Something from nothing?", the answer is: "I don't know, and neither do you, but it's fun to talk about it."

 

[polytrip]

You say that a positron and electron can spontaneously be created. This is a good example of the physical creation of something out of the absence of physical material.

Yet the capacity for spontaneous creation is something. It’s obviously not physical, but it most certainly is something. Without the capacity for spontaneous creation, positrons and electrons would not be spontaneously created.

In medievel times, people used to think that light was something non-physical, a manifestation of the divine. The idea that light is something physical, that it belongs to the realm of the tangible phenomena, is still in a way counterinuitive.
By the use of quotation marks, everybody joining this discussion already indicate that the meaning of the terms 'something', 'nothing' and 'physical' is a major source of confusion.

When you look at things like the double-slit experiment, it is obvious that the smaller the scale of things, the more physical things become un-tangible. A wave is an entirely different concept than a particle.

We may in this regard, be a bit like the people in medievel times, looking at a beam of light. The realm that we cal 'nothing' or 'empty' may be not as empty as it seems. It may be something like an energy-field, where subtle fluctuations create wave-like phenomena that manifest themselves as something that can be seen as particles. It may be something else. But at least it is clear that the smaller the scale, the more the physical phenomena become like a beam of light in medievel eyes. The more the physical world looses those very properties that we identify with concepts like 'physical' or 'something'. From material objects, to waves, to fields, to probability, to....?

As if, when you look realy close, the physical world dissolves before your very eyes.

The planck scale is like a brick wall. We will never be able to look at anything smaller than that, nor measure in shorter time frame´s. A wall not made of stone or anything tangible, but harder than diamond or any material object will ever be. Impenetrable. We must accept that we will never be able to know what´s behind that wall. It could be that there is a universe there, richer than ours. Or it could be...nothing.

 

[gibran2]

gibran2 I completely agree with you that the potential to create alone makes "nothing" into "something", and actually I agree with pretty much everything you write here on the nexus, so I have a hell of a lot of respect for you...

But this is probably the first time I've seen you say something which I wanted to comment on:

It’s not a question of “human” logic. It’s a simple fact.

It IS actually a question of human logic, because everytime humans debate about something all they have is human logic. Whenever someone opens their mouth or writes some text, we're dealing with human logic. And that is a simple fact. And because I'm a human too, the fact that I say it's a fact doesn't really mean anything, because it arises from my human logic. So whenever someone mentions the word "fact", it's really a subjective fact, not an objective fact. (sometimes they're really skillfully disguised as objective facts, so be vigilant..)

It really depends on how we define things.

If I define the symbols “1” and “2” and “+” and “=” as we usually define them, then it is a simple fact that 1+1=2.

I define “nothing” roughly as “that from which no thing can arise”. Based on my definition, “nothing” is an impossibility. There is no such thing as nothing. Nothing does not exist. (You’d think that would be self-evident, but apparently it isn’t.)

 

[CLT]

Even when we define 1 and + and = and so forth, 1+1=2 is really not that simple .. It took Whitehead and Russell more than 300 pages to get that far.

 

[hixidom]

Defining "nothing" as "that from which no thing can arise" already defines "nothing" as a thing, which is a contradiction. Even so, I don't see why a thing from which nothing comes is an impossibility.

Also, I don't understand what you mean when you say "the capacity for spontaneous creation", and why is it required for something to be created from nothing. Can the capacity for spontaneous creation be created? As far as I can tell, "the capacity for spontaneous creation" is just a phrase used to replace the word "nothing" so that we can assert that nothing never existed in the first place. You can always look at nothingness and call it "something". How do you know for sure that this thing that you call "the capacity for spontaneous creation" is a real thing that is required for something to come from nothing and not just a mental abstraction created out of the unfathomability of something coming from absolute nothing? How will you identify nothingness when you experience it?

Picking either side on the nothing-from-something debate requires assuming that something exists in the first place, which should not be considered a trivial assumption in my opinion. Nobody has ever experienced nothing. That does not imply that nothing does not exist. Obviously nothing exists as a metaphysical concept first of all, which makes it just about as real as everything else from a subjective point of view.

Finally, you dismiss my physical example as though you are sure that reality contains things that are NOT physical. You are automatically assuming that the physicalist view and the nihilist view are false. That is not a "fact". And what is a fact anyway? What defines a fact and why should I assume that certain things are facts on top of accepting that arbitrary definition?

 

[Korey]

hixidon, when speaking about positrons and electrons, were you referring to pair production? There is energy in play which allows pair production to occur.

Pair production - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is hardly "something from nothing." As far as I know, positrons and electrons just don't "pop" into existence arbitrarily.

The conservation of energy is highly important when talking about these things.

There can't ever be NOTHING if there is something, and that's whats hard to grapple with. Perhaps the universe is infinitely old?

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

what thing can possibly prevent nothing from being something?

Numbers are the essence of all things and the metaphysical principle of rational order in the universe

 

[joedirt]

There can't ever be NOTHING if there is something, and that's whats hard to grapple with. Perhaps the universe is infinitely old?

Actually it's the opposite isn't it?

Without Nothing there could be no Something.
And with out Something there could not be Nothing.

Nothing = no Something
Something = no Nothing.

Kinda like light and dark.
Could the dark ever exist if the light didn't go out?
And likewise what would light be if there were no dark to illuminate?

Peace

 

[Korey]

No, I don't think it's the opposite.

I was proposing that something has always been here, and there was never nothing.

Something exists independently from nothing, there is no nothing because as far as I can tell, there is something.

If there was nothing, at what point does nothing become something? Doesn't make any sense really.

Light would continue to be electromagnetic radiation regardless if it had darkness to illuminate or not. Just as "something" existing in the universe as a perpetual problem.

 

[joedirt]

Light would continue to be electromagnetic radiation regardless if it had darkness to illuminate or not. Just as "something" existing in the universe as a perpetual problem.

Photons may very well continue to be electromagnetic radiation, but without the dark to illuminate, it will not be considered light.

Light is a concept that cannot exist without dark.
Dark is a concept that can not exist without light.

Nothing is a concept that can only exist relative to Something.
Something is a concept that can only exist relative to Nothing.

The only thing that matters is perception.

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

Something exists independently from nothing, there is no nothing because as far as I can tell, there is something.

the only way you know there to be something is in contrast with nothing.

just as you cannot observe dark unless you have light to contrast it.
or you cannot know silence unless you have sound to contrast it.

EDIT: just read joedirt's post, didn't know i was posting virtually the same thing as him

 

[gibran2]

Defining "nothing" as "that from which no thing can arise" already defines "nothing" as a thing, which is a contradiction. Even so, I don't see why a thing from which nothing comes is an impossibility.

Of course it’s a contradiction – that’s exactly my point. It isn’t possible to define “nothing” without referencing it as a thing. That’s why “nothing” is a logical impossibility.

Also, I don't understand what you mean when you say "the capacity for spontaneous creation", and why is it required for something to be created from nothing. Can the capacity for spontaneous creation be created? As far as I can tell, "the capacity for spontaneous creation" is just a phrase used to replace the word "nothing" so that we can assert that nothing never existed in the first place. You can always look at nothingness and call it "something". How do you know for sure that this thing that you call "the capacity for spontaneous creation" is a real thing that is required for something to come from nothing and not just a mental abstraction created out of the unfathomability of something coming from absolute nothing? How will you identify nothingness when you experience it?

First of all, something can’t be created from nothing – at least that’s my basic premise. The capacity for spontaneous creation isn’t a requirement for something to be created from nothing. Instead, it’s the reason that nothing is an impossibility. To create something, there must be a source of creation. The potential for creation must exist. Whatever we call it – capacity for spontaneous creation, potential for creation, probability of popping into existence – “it” is something.

Picking either side on the nothing-from-something debate requires assuming that something exists in the first place, which should not be considered a trivial assumption in my opinion. Nobody has ever experienced nothing. That does not imply that nothing does not exist. Obviously nothing exists as a metaphysical concept first of all, which makes it just about as real as everything else from a subjective point of view.

I’m quite sure that something exists. And I’ll go one step further and claim that everything exists.

Finally, you dismiss my physical example as though you are sure that reality contains things that are NOT physical. You are automatically assuming that the physicalist view and the nihilist view are false. That is not a "fact". And what is a fact anyway? What defines a fact and why should I assume that certain things are facts on top of accepting that arbitrary definition?

I didn’t dismiss the physical example, nor did I suggest that the “capacity for spontaneous creation” is not physical. I don’t see how it could be physical, but I don’t deny the possibility.

It’s true that quantum fluctuations can lead to the spontaneous production of electron/positron pairs, but aren’t quantum fluctuations “something”?

Are there any examples of something created out of nothing?

 

[gibran2]

Something exists independently from nothing, there is no nothing because as far as I can tell, there is something.

the only way you know there to be something is in contrast with nothing.

just as you cannot observe dark unless you have light to contrast it.
or you cannot know silence unless you have sound to contrast it.

EDIT: just read joedirt's post, didn't know i was posting virtually the same thing as him

Is the only way we know that consciousness exists the result of its contrast to unconsciousness?

By definition, no one has ever experienced unconsciousness. It is not possible to experience unconsciousness, since unconsciousness demands lack of experience.

Yet in spite of the fact that no one has experienced a “contrast” to consciousness, I don’t think anyone would argue that consciousness can’t be experienced.

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

Is the only way we know that consciousness exists the result of its contrast to unconsciousness?

By definition, no one has ever experienced unconsciousness. It is not possible to experience unconsciousness, since unconsciousness demands lack of experience.

people can be unconscious (death/coma)
in this there is no experience.
but what is experience without contrast to no-experience?

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

Something from nothing is a logical impossibility.

For something to arise out of nothing implies that nothing has “creative potential”, but if nothing has creative potential, then it really isn’t nothing – it’s something with, at the very least, creative potential.

Logical contraction sure, but since logic is an artifice system and not extant it is not conclusive.

From another logic position nothing and everything are two polar aspects of a single spectrum and are mutually dependent upon one another. One may view them as reciprocals, akin to "what goes up must come down", or in another sense that existence and no-existence mutually beget one another. In a way this is demonstrable in terms of forms, take a block (child's toy) sitting to my left, it exists, as a form, and yet it did not exist at one point and likewise it will not exist at another point.

I believe that all and nothing both exist concurrently, however this might relate to a distinction of nothing as a concept and formlessness as a concept. In the absolute sense formlessness is equitable with nothing, for it is literally no-thing, it cannot be said to exist as a form of anything, and yet form can only arise from it, likewise in the absolute sense form is equitable with everything, for it is "thing" and again formlessness can only arise from it.

Nothing in this manner is well known conceptually, but considered unfathomable and in incomprehensible. This paradox of concept does not negate it's existence, anymore than the inverse concept does, this is that everything is well known conceptually but also considered unfathomable and incomprehensible, the inability of human mind to understand everything does not however negate the existence of everything.

this is my opinion