The peculiar business of being human

[Coito ergo sum]

Show your work.

One - we don't know that there is a multiverse, so that's a big "if." A huge "if."

For a start, it is not my work. I am not a good mathematician, and this is beyond me. But other people, who have greater minds than mine, are working down this path.

Of course they are, but as I noted above, your "ifs" are huge "ifs" and you haven't made anything simple, nor is the math "basic." It's complex theoretical physics.

The basic equation, by the way, is 0 = x - x (x is whatever number we need to describe the totality of existence). Nothingness is the same as somethingness, if that somethingness is composed of equal parts of positive and negative material.

Except that you referred to matter and antimatter, and when matter and antimatter cancel each other out, they don't result in "nothingness" - they result in huge amounts of energy. The matter and antimatter are changed in form into energy. The sum total, though remains the same (no creation or destruction), and it's all "something."

The multiverse is just the term I used to mean the sum total of everything. Does not matter if many universes exist, or just our own.

It does, though, because you referred to matter and antimatter, and antimatter does not exist in equal proportion to matter in our universe, as far as anyone can tell (unless there is a vast cache of antimatter hanging about somewhere that we have not yet detected, the mass of the universe is mostly matter). So, there is no 0 = matter - antimatter, because matter - antimatter > 0.

the collision of antimatter and matter don't produce "nothing." Such collisions produce large amounts of energy, and matter and energy may be converted to and from each other.

I am well aware of this. That is why I added energy and anti-energy to the description. This is, of course, speculative (though not my personal speculation). However, if we add into the theoretical description something we call negative energy, we can make the equation balance. It may be (probably is) much more complex than this. But the basic principle is sound.

The principal is speculative, because you're assuming that energy and antienergy cancel each other out and become nothing. You made the same allegation about matter and antimatter, but that assertion doesn't hold true for matter and antimatter. Even if there is such a thing as antienergy, there is no way to know right now if they cancel each other out to zero. Alternatively, you could say that all the matter/antimatter/energy/antienergy cancel each other out to become "nothing." However, again, there is no experiential basis for this.

So, what you have is an assumption -- which is fine -- but it is not substantiated. And based on that assumption, taken as a given, you have essentially presumed that the whole idea of nothingness is easily soluble. The difficulty there, though, is that we still have no idea that there even is a condition called "nothingness." Any state of affairs that we refer to generally as "nothing" really is something (like the vacuum of space or whatever). There is no "nothing." I.e. - I would pose a simpler explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. There is no such thing as nothing. There is only something.

Where people get bogged down is in thinking that "something" means the things we're used to seeing. Stars, planets, and space dust and whatnot. however, "something" could well merely be the cooled out, smeared out, completely motionless universe in full entropy, with all particles spread as thinly and homogenously and uniformly as they can be. Picture all the matter/energy in the universe spread out, all the same particles/waves, all just wound down to "zero." Is that "nothing?" No, it's something. It's a universe changed in form from one that is gloppy and bunched up in piles around the universe, to one that has been completely evaporated to the widest possible disbursement.

[Jason]

If I'm following this correctly, Data should have exploded in a gargantuan burst of gamma radiation every time he was shocked.

[Coito ergo sum]

If I'm following this correctly, Data should have exploded in a gargantuan burst of gamma radiation every time he was shocked.

Only if his positrons collided with his electrons, or if neutrons collided with oldtrons.

[Jason]

In a few episodes he passed through high voltage shite of various types, but I seem to recall them covering that in the show now.. something about the shielding around his positronic net.

Still.. Geordi operated on his brain several times and the entire Enterprise was carpeted, except for the shuttle and cargo bays. I guess he was grounded.

[Blind groper]

The principal is speculative, because you're assuming that energy and anti-energy cancel each other out and become nothing.

As I said earlier, it is probably not that simple. The final result may be more like 0 = x + y + z - x - y - z

In other words, it is nothing as simple as energy plus anti-energy cancel each other out. For all I know, energy plus anti energy may form matter, just as matter plus antimatter form energy. The ultimate equation may involve many variables.

However, and I agree it is speculative, there is no reason to believe that the universe (or multiverse) may not, in total, consist of a whole lot of stuff that will interact in such a way as to cancel everything out and leave zero.

The whole point of what I am saying is that something can come from nothing, as long as the overall value is still zero.

[Coito ergo sum]

The principal is speculative, because you're assuming that energy and anti-energy cancel each other out and become nothing.

As I said earlier, it is probably not that simple. The final result may be more like 0 = x + y + z - x - y - z

Or maybe not. Antimatter and matter don't cancel each other out to zero. Is there any reason to think that energy + antienergy + matter + antimatter cancel each other out to zero?

Think of it in "relative" terms. You're driving in a car, if you slow down and then speed up, your motion relative to yourself has to go through zero, right? As you slow down your speed reduces by a negative number, right? -1mph per second say, but if you want to speed up, you go to like -1/2 mph, to -1/4 mph, until your deceleration reaches zero. Then you speed up, + 1/4 mph, + 1/2mph.... +1mph/s. Right? Have you had to stop in order to speed up? Relative to yourself, yes. Relative to the ground, no.

In other words, it is nothing as simple as energy plus anti-energy cancel each other out. For all I know, energy plus anti energy may form matter, just as matter plus antimatter form energy. The ultimate equation may involve many variables.

And, the ultimate equation that you're positing may be wrong, and there is no "canceling out" effect.

However, and I agree it is speculative, there is no reason to believe that the universe (or multiverse) may not, in total, consist of a whole lot of stuff that will interact in such a way as to cancel everything out and leave zero.

The whole point of what I am saying is that something can come from nothing, as long as the overall value is still zero.

Well, we don't know that it "can." We know that we can speculate about it happening.

The real point is that our existence may not have "come from" a state of "nothingness" (whatever that is -- well it can't be an "is" -- it's an "isn't"). There is no such thing as nothing, by definition. lol. What I'm suggesting is that what things come from are other things.

In other words, one of the things that creationists and such carp on about is that "something can't come from nothing" (even though they claim exactly that - god created the universe out of nothing). And, the creationists look around and tell us -- everything that comes to be has a creator. But, the thing is, we don't have a single example of anything ever "coming to be." Some stuff LOOKS like it comes to be, like babies and automobiles. However, these things are not "created." They are more analogous to things that are "molded" or "assembled" from parts. Babies aren't created -- they are made up of stuff that was around here before already, and a process caused the stuff to come together and function in a certain way. Nothig was created. And when things die or dissipate, they aren't destroyed, they are only changed in form.

The same goes for solar systems and galaxies and superclusters, etc.

There really is only one area in all of science and philosophy where something is posited as having come from nothing, and that is in the "creation" or "origin" of the universe. The assumption is made that there was a time when the universe did not exist, and therefore nothing existed. But the reality is, I think, that there was a time when the universe AS WE KNOW IT did not exist, but that doesn't mean that there was "nothing."

Existence exists. That's it.

[Jason]

Existence exists but at some point it didn't? Perhaps the big bang was a dimensional eversion of the matter/energy which has always existed and permutates in cycles analogous to a sine wave for which the sum of all points is zero for each period (big bang events)? I think such a theory has been posited, but the data seems to contradict it as the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than slowing and giving way to the big crunch.

In any case, every hypothesis seems to be founded on the assumption of infinite existence - either of matter and energy or the 'nothing' that 'split' and 'created' matter and energy, precedenting the event that apparently occured only about 13 billion years ago. But what is infinity without the reference point of time, apparently tied so intrinsically to space which did not exist until it was born of that big event ~13bya? Surely some big brains in white coats have pondered these questions.

[Blind groper]

Well, we don't know that it "can." We know that we can speculate about it happening.

Which is why I said it was speculative.

it is one possibility among many. However, in theory, that possibility is possibly real. Something from nothing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Existence exists but at some point it didn't?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Perhaps the big bang was a dimensional eversion of the matter/energy which has always existed

Matter may not always have existed. Matter constitutes only a small portion of the volume of the universe now. Matter can be changed in form, converted to energy, broken to its constituent particles and waves, etc. Existence does not require matter.

and permutates in cycles analogous to a sine wave for which the sum of all points is zero for each period (big bang events)? I think such a theory has been posited, but the data seems to contradict it as the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating rather than slowing and giving way to the big crunch.

Actually, I think the generally accepted or most commonly accepted theory today is that the universe will not crunch.

In any case, every hypothesis seems to be founded on the assumption of infinite existence - either of matter and energy or the 'nothing' that 'split' and 'created' matter and energy, precedenting the event that apparently occured only about 13 billion years ago. But what is infinity without the reference point of time, apparently tied so intrinsically to space which did not exist until it was born of that big event ~13bya? Surely some big brains in white coats have pondered these questions.

Existence -- "stuff" -- existed without time or space. Time and space may have "come to be" (as we know it) in the process labeled "the big bang" -- but, that doesn't mean that there was "nothing" beforehand. The whole concept of "nothing" is a nullity anyway. There never "was" "nothing." Nothing is not a thing that can "be." It "isn't." It isn't even an "it." Using the pronoun "it" to describe "nothing" embodies it with a "something" context. It makes us envision a blackness or an empty space - but for all things not to be, then there wouldn't be any empty space either. Stuff just "wouldn't be." Seems a lot more plausible, to me, that stuff came from other stuff and stuff just is.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, we don't know that it "can." We know that we can speculate about it happening.

Which is why I said it was speculative.

it is one possibility among many. However, in theory, that possibility is possibly real. Something from nothing.

I love speculation. My only beef with your discussion was your couching it in terms of "simple" and with certainty. It certainly does't simplify anything, and it's not anywhere close to being shown to be true.

And, your summation about things canceling each other out does not in any way explain how something could come from nothing.

[Blind groper]

And, your summation about things canceling each other out does not in any way explain how something could come from nothing.

Maybe I am at fault for not explaining it very well.

Take the simplest such equation. 0 = 1 - 1.

There are three terms to that equation.
0 means nothing.
+1 is something
-1 is also something.

Yet the two somethings equal nothing. 1 - 1 is exactly the same thing as nothing. Yet the +1 and the -1 are, indeed, individually something. Together, they equal nothing. So something comes from nothing.

It may be that, as humanity learns more of the nature of the universe (multiverse?), we find there are a number of 'somethings' (like matter, antimatter, energy, anti-energy, substance X, substance anti-X) that behave like +1 and -1 and altogether cancel each other out. If so, the net value of all existence is nothing. Hence something can come from nothing.

We know of 'vacuum energy'. Bits and pieces of existence that pop in and out of existence in 'empty' space. The above suggestion is quite similar, except on a large scale.

[charlou]

I was about to say you're focussing on the item and ignoring the key elements + and - in that summary, Blind Groper .. then read again and realised, it's I who was doing so. gah.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, your summation about things canceling each other out does not in any way explain how something could come from nothing.

Maybe I am at fault for not explaining it very well.

Take the simplest such equation. 0 = 1 - 1.

There are three terms to that equation.
0 means nothing.
+1 is something
-1 is also something.

Yet the two somethings equal nothing. 1 - 1 is exactly the same thing as nothing. Yet the +1 and the -1 are, indeed, individually something. Together, they equal nothing. So something comes from nothing.

That's a mathematical expression, and there isn't a -1 in the real world. Matter is not 1 and antimatter is not -1. Matter is matter, but antimatter is not "negative matter" that equals matter on the other side of the zero and cancels each other out to zero. At least, that isn't what the evidence shows.

It may be that, as humanity learns more of the nature of the universe (multiverse?), we find there are a number of 'somethings' (like matter, antimatter, energy, anti-energy, substance X, substance anti-X) that behave like +1 and -1 and altogether cancel each other out. If so, the net value of all existence is nothing. Hence something can come from nothing.

Except, we haven't found anything that cancels out to zero. Matter and antimatter produce a ton of energy, not "zero."

We know of 'vacuum energy'. Bits and pieces of existence that pop in and out of existence in 'empty' space. The above suggestion is quite similar, except on a large scale.

That's a bit different, though, as it involves oscillation theory and Heisenberg's time-space uncertainty principle.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

<snip> The film The Gods Must be Crazy made the point well, chronicling the journey of a glass Coke bottle through an African culture and all the uses to which they put it. Turns out it wasn't a bottle at all. It was all sorts of things, depending upon what they needed it to be. I don't think they once used it for a bottle in that film. Of course, this is a fictional example, but it makes the point well. <snip>

I was intrigued, so I acquired this film. Interesting.

I want that LandRover.