We live in a infinite universe

[Belz...]

Our universe isn't eternal. It had a start. It came from nothing.

You don't know that. Stop making stuff up.

You aren't even reading what people tell you. Either stop trolling and make your case, or accept that you won't be taken seriously at all.

 

[Pixel42]

Common sense.

Common sense says the earth is flat, and the sun goes round the earth. Common sense has actually proved to be a very poor guide to the nature of the universe. Most of modern physics is counterintuitive.

 

[Belz...]

It's not common sense. Quantum events do not conform to common sense.

Don't you feel like you're getting more perfect as time passes?

Because

1) He's not saying this is the explanation for the universe, he's saying this is one of many possible explanations

So am I. At least we agree on something.

The word 'universe' is normally synonymous with 'reality' being that there is only one universe and it encompasses everything, but when the multiverse is being discussed within the parameters of this conversation it's irrelevant where the individual universes pop up from, but where the multiverse itself originated.

The question was from where OUR universe originated. Now you're asking where the larger context originated. I didn't discuss this, and I don't think we even _can_ have an answer to that. And as I said, if time only exists within individual universes (if at all), then the multiverse itself is timeless, and has no beginning or origin.

The contention is not whether something specific can come from nothing, but whether anything can. So far you've not provided any citations for Hawking or anybody else saying that something cannot come from nothing, whereas I have shown where Hawking actually believes it is possible.

I'm sure you'll be able to provide a mechanism through which something can come from something, since that's the positive claim; but since the only example you can think of are virtual particles, and they come from quantum fluctuations (which aren't nothing), I'm eagerly waiting for another example.

 

[Belz...]

The universe doesn't care for you. 99.99999 (add a few billion billion more 9's here)% of the universe is so hostile to human life that you would die in a microsecond of ending up there.

Minutes. Let's be fair. You'd die in about a minute.

 

[Dancing David]

The universe had a beginning. At the beginning there was nothing.

Incorrect there is a beginning, prior to that there is 'we don't know', plenty of great speculations yet 'we don't know', none the less.

 

[slipknot0129]

We only see a small part of the whole universe. It's infinite. Meaning all things are possible. So when you are watching a movie, you are looking into a window to another universe.

 

[JayUtah]

So when you are watching a movie, you are looking into a window to another universe.

No, you're watching a story some people made up and photographed. Is a photograph of my mother a window into her soul?

So much verbal glitter, no substance.

 

[baron]

Don't you feel like you're getting more perfect as time passes?

When you're as close I am further increase is difficult to quantify.

So am I. At least we agree on something.

The question was from where OUR universe originated. Now you're asking where the larger context originated.

The original question was can something come from nothing? Unless you assume the existence of the multiverse then 'universe' is synonymous with 'something'. Speculating that our universe arose from another universe does nothing but defer the question.

I didn't discuss this, and I don't think we even _can_ have an answer to that. And as I said, if time only exists within individual universes (if at all), then the multiverse itself is timeless, and has no beginning or origin.

And that's one hypothesis. There are many more.

I'm sure you'll be able to provide a mechanism through which something can come from something, since that's the positive claim; but since the only example you can think of are virtual particles, and they come from quantum fluctuations (which aren't nothing), I'm eagerly waiting for another example.

That's begging the question. You believe that 'nothing' does not exist and therefore everything that is shown experimentally to appear comes from 'something'. Even if that were true, and it's by no means accepted as consensus, it's not even relevant to whether something can be created from nothing. I've already quoted Hawking when he states that he believes it's possible. Krauss is another one who believes this, and makes the point at length in a book the title of which I've forgotten that if the total energy of the universe is zero then there is nothing stopping it having been created from literally nothing at all; that is, a complete absence of anything, even space and time. He backs this up with a great deal of reasoning and reference to experimental evidence.

So who do you have on your side who states explicitly that something cannot be created from nothing?

 

[phiwum]

Yes there is. It's a fundamentally flawed argument. Why did you even give the example of an 'even prime'? Why not say the number one, or the number 29, or the colour orange or this specific keyboard I am typing on right at this moment? Because all these things are implicitly numerically bounded by their own definitions and clearly I was not referring to such things. Where something has no implicit restrictions then it will be present in infinite numbers in an infinite universe. That's not speculation, it's mathematical fact; any possibility, no matter how small, translates to an infinite number of actualities in an infinite universe. So not only would you have infinite dog turds and infinite soup, you would also have an infinite number of planets identical to the Earth except that a tossed coin will never turn up heads, and an infinite number of users with the name phiwum on forums identical to this making incorrect assumptions about the implications of infinity.

There literally is no such principle.

There is no contradiction in imagining a "sack" with infinitely many marbles, exactly seventeen of which are blue.

Your so-called mathematical fact is made up out of nothing at all, sorry. It just isn't how infinity works.


But do tell. Go ahead and cite this "mathematical fact". I've studied infinite sets a fair bit, but I sure did miss this "fact", so please do educate me.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I live a simple life. Knowing facts about the universe. Like it being infinite and the universe caring for you. Like it also coming from nothing.

Yeah, I guess pretending you know facts is simpler than trying to find them out.

 

[Belz...]

When you're as close I am further increase is difficult to quantify.

The original question was can something come from nothing? Unless you assume the existence of the multiverse then 'universe' is synonymous with 'something'. Speculating that our universe arose from another universe does nothing but defer the question.

That's beside the point. The question is, at the core, the mechanism through which the universe can come to exist. The idea is that the universe is essentially (that is, in my own words) a stable 'bubble' or pattern (with its own, randomly-selected physical laws) formed in a 'sea' of chaos. The sea of chaos is not nothing. It's total randomness (quantum fluctuations), sure, but it's not nothing. And you can't really call it "the universe", either, since it's essentially without any parameters you could ever recognise; it's the context in which the universe exists.

So again, do you have any idea of the mechanism through which nothing can produce something (and I repeat: virtual particles don't count)?

And that's one hypothesis. There are many more.

Actually there's only one more: that there's a dimension of time to the underlying reality. That would be assuming an extra entity, however; one for which we have no evidence or reasoning.

That's begging the question. You believe that 'nothing' does not exist and therefore everything that is shown experimentally to appear comes from 'something'.

No, that's not at all what I said. We know that virtual particles arise from quantum events. They don't arise from nothing. Begging the question would be me assuming that they come from something absent evidence that they do, but this is not the case.

I've already quoted Hawking when he states that he believes it's possible.

Believes?

Krauss is another one who believes this, and makes the point at length in a book the title of which I've forgotten that if the total energy of the universe is zero then there is nothing stopping it having been created from literally nothing at all; that is, a complete absence of anything, even space and time.

You can have "something" absent space and time.

So who do you have on your side who states explicitly that something cannot be created from nothing?

Logic.

 

[baron]

There literally is no such principle.

it's mathematics, not physics, and it's called probability.

There is no contradiction in imagining a "sack" with infinitely many marbles, exactly seventeen of which are blue.

You're doing it again. You specified 17 marbles. If you have 17 marbles in the whole of infinitely then obviously there are 17 marbles. However, if people manufacture marbles (which they do) in an infinite universe and a marble has even a billion billion billionth (to whatever power you choose) of being blue, then you will have an infinite number of blue marbles.

Your so-called mathematical fact is made up out of nothing at all, sorry. It just isn't how infinity works.

But do tell. Go ahead and cite this "mathematical fact". I've studied infinite sets a fair bit, but I sure did miss this "fact", so please do educate me.

So what are you telling me? That you've 'studied infinite sets a fair bit' but you don't know that some infinities are bigger than others? Never heard of Cantor? Or are you saying that your studies have not revealed that an event repeated infinitely with a non-zero possibility of result X will eventually produce result X no matter how high the odds.

 

[baron]

That's beside the point. The question is, at the core, the mechanism through which the universe can come to exist. The idea is that the universe is essentially (that is, in my own words) a stable 'bubble' or pattern (with its own, randomly-selected physical laws) formed in a 'sea' of chaos. The sea of chaos is not nothing. It's total randomness (quantum fluctuations), sure, but it's not nothing. And you can't really call it "the universe", either, since it's essentially without any parameters you could ever recognise; it's the context in which the universe exists.

So again, do you have any idea of the mechanism through which nothing can produce something (and I repeat: virtual particles don't count)?

Do you have any idea of the mechanism by which a bubble universe can spontaneously arise from 'a sea of chaos'? Likewise, I don't know the equations for the alternative hypothesis but some people far more learned than me do, and I've just named two of them. Do you yet have names of physicists or cosmologists who do not believe that something can come from nothing?

Actually there's only one more: that there's a dimension of time to the underlying reality. That would be assuming an extra entity, however; one for which we have no evidence or reasoning.

There are dozens of hypotheses of how the universe arose and even what it is, from bubbles and branes to holograms and simulations. These may assume time, no time or several temporal dimensions. At least one disputes the actual existence of time.

No, that's not at all what I said. We know that virtual particles arise from quantum events. They don't arise from nothing. Begging the question would be me assuming that they come from something absent evidence that they do, but this is not the case.

It's not that simple. You seem to be assuming that particles are little 'things' that pop up out of a sea of 'something'. That's not what happens at all. You can't say they come from 'something' simply because that sounds reasonable. Quantum physics is not reasonable.

Believes?

Um, yes.

You can have "something" absent space and time.

I don't know what that means.

Logic.

Logic as in... common sense? Logic does not work at the quantum level. Logic dictates that a particle cannot interfere with itself, cannot be in two places at once, cannot travel along an multiple paths concurrently, cannot smear itself out through space, yet this is what happens in the quantum world.

 

[phiwum]

it's mathematics, not physics, and it's called probability.

Let us select randomly a string (s_i) of n elements of {0,1}. Then it does indeed follow that

lim_n -> oo P(|{i < n | s_i = 0}| > n/3) = 1,

roughly speaking, the probability that there are infinitely many 1's in an infinite stream is 1.

It does not follow that finitely many ones is impossible. Probability 1 does not mean certainty, and probability 0 does not mean impossibility.

You're doing it again. You specified 17 marbles. If you have 17 marbles in the whole of infinitely then obviously there are 17 marbles. However, if people manufacture marbles (which they do) in an infinite universe and a marble has even a billion billion billionth (to whatever power you choose) of being blue, then you will have an infinite number of blue marbles.

Any random stream over {0,1} has probability 1 of having infinitely many 1s, roughly speaking, but there are infinitely many streams that have only finitely many 1s.

So what are you telling me? That you've 'studied infinite sets a fair bit' but you don't know that some infinities are bigger than others? Never heard of Cantor? Or are you saying that your studies have not revealed that an event repeated infinitely with a non-zero possibility of result X will eventually produce result X no matter how high the odds.

Different sizes of cardinality is not really relevant here, so far.[1]

And, your second statement is false. Again, probability 1 does not mean certainty.

[1] For your edification, by "a fair bit", I do mean graduate level studies in set theory as well as related topics. You can rest assured that I know Cantor's theorem.

 

[John Jones]

Using common sense, the universe came from nothing.

Anyone making appeals to 'common sense' doesn't have any.

 

[John Jones]

Yes the universe came from nothing. It's simple common sense. It's impossible for something to always have existed.

No. You're wrong. Your common sense argument is wrong too.

Your claim that "It's impossible for something to always have existed." is unsupported by logic or rhetoric.

Given your inability to follow Grade 1 logic, It's almost certainly wrong too.

 

[baron]

Let us select randomly a string (s_i) of n elements of {0,1}. Then it does indeed follow that

lim_n -> oo P(|{i < n | s_i = 0}| > n/3) = 1,

roughly speaking, the probability that there are infinitely many 1's in an infinite stream is 1.

It does not follow that finitely many ones is impossible. Probability 1 does not mean certainty, and probability 0 does not mean impossibility.

That's of no practical relevance. You know full well (from your education) that a probability of 1 in a practical sense means 'certain'. Mathematically it's equivocated with an 'almost' but you never see that actuality in the physical world. So if a blue marble is produced for every [insert number so unfeasibly massive that it could never be even contemplated] non-blue marbles you can be certain, to all intents and purposes, that you will have an infinite number of blue marbles in an infinite universe, and not 17.

Any random stream over {0,1} has probability 1 of having infinitely many 1s, roughly speaking, but there are infinitely many streams that have only finitely many 1s.

That's not what you said. You specified '17 marbles'. You've already made the constraint, there is no maths to be done.

Different sizes of cardinality is not really relevant here, so far.[1]

And, your second statement is false. Again, probability 1 does not mean certainty.

[1] For your edification, by "a fair bit", I do mean graduate level studies in set theory as well as related topics. You can rest assured that I know Cantor's theorem.

I didn't know what you were objecting to, hence my mention of different magnitudes of infinity, but seeing you've made that clear I answered it above.

 

[phiwum]

That's of no practical relevance. You know full well (from your education) that a probability of 1 in a practical sense means 'certain'. Mathematically it's equivocated with an 'almost' but you never see that actuality in the physical world. So if a blue marble is produced for every [insert number so unfeasibly massive that it could never be even contemplated] non-blue marbles you can be certain, to all intents and purposes, that you will have an infinite number of blue marbles in an infinite universe, and not 17.



That's not what you said. You specified '17 marbles'. You've already made the constraint, there is no maths to be done.



I didn't know what you were objecting to, hence my mention of different magnitudes of infinity, but seeing you've made that clear I answered it above.

You said:

Where something has no implicit restrictions then it will be present in infinite numbers in an infinite universe. That's not speculation, it's mathematical fact; any possibility, no matter how small, translates to an infinite number of actualities in an infinite universe.

It is not mathematical fact. It is a fact that, given something like a uniform distribution, this would occur with probability 1. Of course, it's not at all clear what distribution one puts on the universe as a whole (presuming it's infinite) in order to conclude that there is probability 1 of infinitely many phiwums. This question is nigh unanswerable, hence the switch to mathematical settings, where we can discuss probabilities rather more easily.

The probability of selecting a rational number randomly from [0,1] is 0, but it surely is not a mathematical fact that any number selected from [0,1] is irrational.

Anyway, it seems we understand one another now.

 

[baron]

You said:


It is not mathematical fact. It is a fact that, given something like a uniform distribution, this would occur with probability 1. Of course, it's not at all clear what distribution one puts on the universe as a whole (presuming it's infinite) in order to conclude that there is probability 1 of infinitely many phiwums. This question is nigh unanswerable, hence the switch to mathematical settings, where we can discuss probabilities rather more easily.

The probability of selecting a rational number randomly from [0,1] is 0, but it surely is not a mathematical fact that any number selected from [0,1] is irrational.

OK, 'mathematically' would be better phrased with a reference to practical application. This is illustrated in your example, where random choice of a number in the range could not actually occur in the real world because each choice would take an infinite amount of time.

So back to my example, in an infinite universe there will, practically speaking, be infinite soup and infinite dog turds.

Anyway, it seems we understand one another now.

 

[Belz...]

Do you have any idea of the mechanism by which a bubble universe can spontaneously arise from 'a sea of chaos'?

I do, actually.

Likewise, I don't know the equations for the alternative hypothesis but some people far more learned than me do, and I've just named two of them.

I'm not asking you for equations but a mechanism. A description.

There are dozens of hypotheses of how the universe arose and even what it is, from bubbles and branes to holograms and simulations. These may assume time, no time or several temporal dimensions. At least one disputes the actual existence of time.

I didn't mean to imply that there's only two hypotheses about the universe's origin. But I said "no time" and you said there were several other options. There's pretty much only one alternative to "no time" and that's "time."

You seem to be assuming that particles are little 'things' that pop up out of a sea of 'something'. That's not what happens at all. You can't say they come from 'something' simply because that sounds reasonable. Quantum physics is not reasonable.

That's not an answer at all. Yes, particles are things, by definition, and yes they pop up in a sea of "something". It's just not "something" of the sort that we're used to outside of QM. The quantum "foam" is not nothing.

I don't know what that means.

I mean that time and space are not required features of an existing thing.

Logic as in... common sense?

No.

Logic does not work at the quantum level.

Oh, yes it does. Otherwise there'd be no way to have a theory about how it works and how to use it to our advantage. And yet there is.