The Universe: Nothing Is But What Is Not

I read the book “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss six months ago. I’ve been reading science books since my teenage years (oh, so, so long ago) although I am so far from a scientist that I am closer to a sumo wrestler. I was good in science in high school. As Penny from “The Big Bang Theory” said, “I was good cutting up that frog thingy.”

The book discusses the scientific reasons for why there is something rather than nothing – a question that has troubled me since my junior year of high school when the foundation of my religious upbringing came tumbling down, albeit in slow motion.

In college one of my three majors was philosophy (the other two were history and literature). I was quite smart in those days. I learned a hell of a lot but I really didn’t know anything. When all was said and done, and all was written and discussed I was still wandering in the intellectual desert. I could stack up all my college books from floor to ceiling twice over and all the books I read on my own from the floor to the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (okay, exaggerating here for effect) and one big question could never be answered despite the attempts by so many brilliant philosophers through the history of civilization to answer it: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

The question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” always confused me, actually upset me. The answer my co-religionists gave me in high school (the priests, my fellow classmates, my truly wonderful parents) was that God created everything. Well, sorry, but God is something therefore the religious idea was simply “something” created something. (To me spiritual beings such as God would be something, whether in time, not in time, ever existing or whatever existing.)That God answer was just not satisfying.

So who created that “something” that created something? Certainly not a god.

It seemed to get more sophisticated when I read the Greeks. The “uncaused cause” was a rallying cry for those who thought everything was caused by something else except the cause that caused all the other causes which was called the “uncaused cause.” The universe was a series of causes and effects except for the uncaused cause. Sorry, no, made no sense to me. If everything has a cause then the “uncaused cause” had to have a cause too. The “uncaused cause” was just God without the attendant human characteristics.

Krauss explains that the “nothing” before the universe was not the “nothing” we think about when we say nothing. Instead it is (or was) a nothing with creative properties; in short, “nothing” was nothing; nothing couldn’t exist. It was always something; always, even before time. (Yes, writing that does sound nutty but it seems to fit the bill. Maybe the mathematical formula when looked at causes this response, “Oh, yes, so obvious.” As opposed to, “What the hell is this guy talking about?”)

So let me cut to the chase here. Something did not come from “nothing.” Nothing never existed – since existence is something. The universe / before-the-universe – however you like to describe it – was always something, even if it was not the something we think of as the “something” today. Nothing is – for lack of a better word – not and has always been (even before time) a not.

The fact that existence “exists” means non-existence cannot exist and could never have existed. Even before time existence was. That “existence” created, transformed – whatever you’d like to call it – what we see and theorize about today. Space, time, stuff as we know it, did not have to be space, time and stuff as we know it; but something existed nevertheless. Everything is then the “uncaused cause” since causes merely change the form of what has always been there. (Yes, I know I am using time-related words. I can’t seem to break that time link in my writing. I think that is human language as opposed to the math language used by physicists.)

The universe was, is, and will always be if we count the before and after the universe as something, which it certainly must be. The effects of all the causes we think we ascertain about us are merely the changing shapes of what has always been – even before the matter, energy and the time and space of it all existed.

In short, before there was an “is” (time, space, matter, energy, you) there was an “is” that was not time, space, matter, energy, you; and after all the “is” goes away there still will be an “is” except it won’t be time, space, matter, energy or you. There never was nothing; there isn’t nothing; there can never be nothing. Nothing is a non-idea.

Okay, now let William Shakespeare, the greatest writer of all time put it succinctly, “Nothing is but what is not.” Thank you Macbeth for clearing this up for me.

Quote: FrankScoblete

there can never be nothing. Nothing is a non-idea.

Evidently this is the bottom line, a concept that seems undeniable but with which the modern human mind struggles.

I'm not sure about simpler times. The Romans didnt have a zero.

Aren't you just substituting the word Nothing for God?

Quote: FrankScoblete

and one big question could never be answered despite the attempts by so many brilliant philosophers through the history of civilization to answer it: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

Once upon a time there was a man who sought higher wisdom all his life. He learned quite a bit in his lifetime and was celebrated for his advanced knowledge. But he had a puzzling dream many times during his life. He would dream he was climbing a mountain. It was a difficult climb, and at the top was a grizzled old man.

At this point in the dream, he knew this man had the answers to knowledge of things he still didn't know, so he would ask the few remaining "big" questions.

The same thing would happen in the dream. The old man would give the answer, "Guinea pig."

If he tried to ask anything more, he would wake up.

~

So, years later, the man of higher wisdom died. In death, his consciousness was aware again. He felt himself drifting up to a familiar place. Once again, he was in front of the old man on the mountain. He felt compelled to ask his questions again.

"Guinea pig." replied the old man.

But this time, the wisdom seeker stayed and was able to follow-up. "What do you mean, sir, guinea pig?"

The old man looked annoyed, and then said, "Welcome idiot! You can't teach a guinea pig calculus!"

Nothing Exists

Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.

Desiring to show his attainment, he said: "The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist. The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be received."

Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.

"If nothing exists," inquired Dokuon, "where did this anger come from?"

Not God at all.

Our concept of God is one who made us in his image and likeness --- he is a spiritual being, conscious, involved, loving, hating and so on. The universe, before its existence as the one we are in and after its existence, is and was the uncaused cause since nothing has been actually caused, merely changing. That changing is not God. The "why is there something rather than nothing" therefore has no meaning because there cannot be nothing, before, during or after the universe. God has nothing to do with it unless an individual must persist in such belief for whatever reason. The belief is unnecessary since the universe did not come from nothing but from itself. There never was a nothing, even before time, space, etc. or after time, space, etc.

I hope I am making sense. It seems clear to me.

Nice OP Frank.....yeah, the idea that there was never nothing.....heavy

"Nothing" is something... and "that's better than nothing!"

Quote: pew

Aren't you just substituting the word Nothing for God?

Aren't you tacitly admitting God does not exist?

In any case, I would say that if there is no time, there need not be a "before" or "after." I think some kind of metaverse is likely, but no meaningful statement can be made. (It annoys me when people insist on the many-worlds interpretation on essentially this basis, when it's utterly unfalsifiable.)

The God idea is not needed for existence. Could there be a super-being? Maybe. Maybe not. The multiverse idea doesn't have any influence on what I am writing about because it is in the same "boat" as all that exists. We can have as many universes as you wish but the answer to "why is there something rather than nothing" remains the same as I stated.

(Just because I stated it, doesn't make it true; it just makes it make sense to me.)

Kinda deep for a Saturday morning?

A book that helped me with all the existential questions was "No Boundary" by Ken Wilbur. I've read it 4 times and should probably read it again.

One of his explainations is that things only exist in relationship to their opposite's. Head's tails, light dark, etc. The shoreline is not where the sea and land separate but where they join.

Time or the measurement of time was invented by man as a way to put distance between himself and his eventual demise. The past does not exist any more than the future. The only time that exist's is the 'Nunc fluens" or the everpresent now. Past is only a present memory. Time does not pass.
It also only exists in relationship to space or "spacetime". If you could travel out in space far enough fast enough you could look back at earth and watch the pyramids being built. I think that's the main reason behind the ferme or hadron proton collider's, and experiment in time travel? That's probably not for this discussion though.

I think that which is nothing is only semantics for "dark matter" which takes up much more space in the universe than light matter.

I'm not sure if this response was on topic or not? Hope this helps.

Question for Frank Scoblete. I think I've read where you spoke with Pat Demaurro? Was she able to make her famous roll of over 4 hours without having to take a potty break? What happen's when a shooter is on such a monster roll that the only choice you have is where your going to pee not if?

Did you ever consider being at that table? My luck I'd have been betting the dark side.

"Nothing" is defined by the absence of "something." Without "something," you can't have nothing. That's always been the most comforting idea for me when I have thought about why anything exists at all.

Another way to think of it is to imagine black text on a white piece of paper. The white background is just as important as the black text in providing meaning to the symbols. It's the contrast between something and nothing that allows meaning to form, both on paper and in the universe.

Pat, her friend John and I met one weekend in Vegas for one of my classes. She was the guest speaker at our Friday night party and told her story to an admiring and rather large crowd. She did not go to the bathroom during her roll. My wife would have had to go about ten times during such a roll. Pat is a very nice woman. If she had to go I guess she would have taken a short time out, if the casino let her.

I have been on long rolls, a couple over two hours, but never anything close to four hours.

Had I been at that table I would not have really been betting much for the first 50 rolls or so because I really don't bet much on random rollers. In retrospect it seems that I would have blown the chance to make a fortune but now fast forward: Pat DeMauro is going to shoot the dice tonight. Will you assume a huge roll? No way. I'd 5-Count her and then go up on one small bet. Yes, if she gets to 50 or so I assume I would have made some money and then I might begin spreading to two numbers. But my wife says one of my great sayings is "I play with one foot pointed towards the door." I actually don't remember saying that but it does make a lot of sense.

Quote: FrankScoblete

Not God at all.

Our concept of God is one who made us in his image and likeness --- he is a spiritual being, conscious, involved, loving, hating and so on. The universe, before its existence as the one we are in and after its existence, is and was the uncaused cause since nothing has been actually caused, merely changing. That changing is not God. The "why is there something rather than nothing" therefore has no meaning because there cannot be nothing, before, during or after the universe. God has nothing to do with it unless an individual must persist in such belief for whatever reason. The belief is unnecessary since the universe did not come from nothing but from itself. There never was a nothing, even before time, space, etc. or after time, space, etc.

I hope I am making sense. It seems clear to me.

Yes, but in your statement you used the term "creative" which is something. I think.

A raging fire has creative properties; it creates ash.

Quote: 24Bingo

A raging fire has creative properties; it creates ash.

Thats not what creative means in this context. Chemical processes aren't creative. It has to be teleonomic to be creative. The fire doesn't create the ash. Its already in the wood.

I can't help but get the image of a contortionist trying desperately to fit into a small box when I read Frank's OP. It confirms for me the idea that whether you believe or don't believe is partly due to an act of the will. Some understand the idea of a spiritual being who is not dependent on anything else for its existence, the "unmoved mover" or "uncaused cause" who began it all and indeed did create something out of absolute nothingness. Others don't seem to grant the spiritual any reality and rather posit that something like matter or energy has always existed, they think there has never been nothing. Both ideas stretch the mind but for some reason or another we seem to want to believe in one of them more than the other.

I think a more helpful discussion than theory about how can something come from nothing or did nothing ever even exist, is why do people choose to believe in God or not believe in God? I think that there are a lot of people that no matter what arguments are made will never believe in God because they are uncomfortable thinking that they are not really the one setting the dice, so to speak. Then there are others, like myself, who will never not believe in God because I am uncomfortable thinking there is no one setting the dice at all, everything is just random chance, and there is no where to cash out in the end.

You see Fr. Gamble, God is something, not so much a physical entity as we would think but something nevertheless. If God exists then existence has always been. Using the word God just makes it one step removed. I do not see the idea of "creating out of nothing" since something, God, exists to create. Now, I would rather not bandy words but...oh, what the heck.

The opening of the book of Genesis goes something like this (I am relying on memory here):

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth; the earth was without form and void with darkness over the face of the abyss and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the water. And God said, 'Let there be light.'" ...and on it goes from there.

I read that to mean God existed, water existed, wind existed, and later on God brings the dry land up out of the water which obviously existed. So even those who read the religious concept of the birth of the Earth must necessarily believe something was existing with God. There never was a "nothing." In short, nothing never existed. I would also suggest that in all the religions and philosophies underscoring such religions including Hinduism, Buddhism and such something exists. Even if the Hindus or Buddhists believe all is illusion such illusion exists and the mind to be deluded also exists even if it is fooling itself.

Now some would say that nothing is merely the absence of something. Show me where there is nothing. I might not have a pencil but the absence of the pencil does not mean that "nothing" exists. It is merely the absence of a pencil. If someone took the pencil it is not there but light waves are there; sub-atomic particles are there and who knows what else is there; maybe strings (homage to Sheldon Cooper on that one). Even between stars and galaxies there is no "nothing."

I do not think we need a God for "existence" to exist. I think outside of the time and space of the universe (before the beginning if you will) existence was and after the universe as we know it ends, existence will exist. Existence merely changes forms (forms is a bad word but I can't think of a better one at the moment) but does not change its reality.

Something always existed even when time did not exist. I am not attacking those who believe in a God; for all I know God might exist but I am saying it is not necessary for God to exist to explain existence.

I have to say, I really like the way both arguments are framed here. The topic really is both a search for truth and an analysis of belief. Reality MUST take place in our minds and in our shared consciousness.

It also follows that we can have no knowledge of that which we cannot sense, directly or indirectly. Our differences lie in how we address that fact.

Quote: pew

Thats not what creative means in this context. Chemical processes aren't creative. It has to be teleonomic to be creative. The fire doesn't create the ash. Its already in the wood.

You think quantum vacuum is teleonomic? The universe was already in it as much as the ash was in the wood.

Frank I wish I could do as well as you when quoting Scripture from memory. You are correct in how the book of Genesis presents creation but the mistake is in using that to draw scientific conclusions. The Bible is meant to pass on spiritual truths. The main points of the creation stories of Genesis are that God created the heavens and earth, that He did so freely and out of love, that His creation is good, and that humans are the crown jewel of all of creation.

The how of creation is more for scientific study. However, theological and philosophical reflection on creation has led to the reasonable belief that God did indeed create out of nothingness. There is no eternal substance or matter. The thing that often trips us up is thinking that God has His existence in the same way a banana or you or I have our existence. God is not a thing, substance, or matter. He is not a big guy with a beard in the heavens. Maybe I can say that God is not something, but rather God is reality or existence itself (WARNING: I am not a pantheist even though it sounds dangerous close right now). The type of being who holds all existence in itself and is the "uncaused cause" has a type of existence that is real in a different way than matter, stuff, atoms, molecules, etc. of which God is not made.

So then, who or what made god?

I just cannot fathom how something can ALWAYS have existed.

To infinity, and beyond!

There is no such thing as nothingness. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence. At the subatomic level, particles can also travel forward and backwards in time.

I am still working on the BIG BANG Theory. First there was nothing, then it exploded into the universe ?

Think I will just give and start analyzing the STRING theory ?

Quote: 24Bingo

You think quantum vacuum is teleonomic? The universe was already in it as much as the ash was in the wood.

Thats what I was asking Frank. Is nothing creative?

Quote: MrV

So then, who or what made god?

I just cannot fathom how something can ALWAYS have existed.

To infinity, and beyond!

The whole point is that nothing/God is eternal. The cosmos is not, so it's not nothing/God. Unless you're a pantheist/panentheist, in which case God is not nothing He's something because the cosmos always existed and God is in the cosmos or is the cosmos. I think.

Suppose we all are in a type of SIM City environment. That would mean we have sub-deities. Or minor deities that created the universe we know but don't know exactly how they came to be? Gods of limited power.

It can't be ruled out.

So there.

I think it fits with all the random destruction. Let's hope they don't decide to violently shake the Ant Farm.

Mr. V., something exists now, I think we agree on that. (Even illusion is something since it takes an intelligence to experience that illusion.) So why would we assume that nothing ever existed? If true nothing ever existed then something cannot come from that. Pushing it back a step to say that God created it all from nothing is the same thing as saying nothing never existed since God existed. The fact that there is something --- even if it is a some thing that is far different than the some things we are involved with such as space, time, matter and energy, etc. --- does not mean that if that "some thing" is not like we take for something (such as the desk I am writing at) it is therefore nothing. There was a beginning to the universe as we know it (or universes if we go with the multiple-universe theory) but before the beginning there was existence, just not existence as we know it or can even understand it. There had to be existence since we see existence all around us, in us, through us and before us.

I have absolute respect for Fr. Gamble but I think the Catholic Church's teaching of the universe coming from nothing is merely the extremely bright theologians looking at the ancient stories and saying, "That's not exactly logical so let's add something to these stories in our theology. I got it, God made the universe from nothing." There is no creation story where nothing was in existence. There was always something --- even if that something is out of time and space which is what science and religion agree upon. The difference is the implying of thought, consciousness or what have you to what existed before our universe. Religion implies consciousness to the universe or pre-universe when I do not think such needs to exist for existence to exist. (You know I could be put away for that last sentence because it makes perfect sense to me!)

The idea that sub-atomic particles just "pop" into existence in our universe is an important one. The idea that such properties of the universe can transcend our concept of time and space would tend to prove that nothing never existed. Those "pops" are clues to the before. As for the teleonomic universe that would imply some organizing force? I am not quite sure if quantum theory is pushing that. I know in biology we think all physical attributes of people have a reason for existing or did have a reason but I am not sure about the universe needing a reason for existing since existence existed before the universe. (I am sounding more and more like a wild man in these sentences. I hope someone tells me I am not crazy.)

One argument that no one has made is the simple one of "We have consciousness so obviously such consciousness is part of the universe or a property of the universe and therefore had to exist before the universe." Jumping on that we then say such consciousness existed in a state prior to the universe and that state is God.

I do not think that argument holds water but I am heading out to swim so I must leave with the water imagery.

Quote: Keyser

There is no such thing as nothingness. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence. At the subatomic level, particles can also travel forward and backwards in time.

There is a such thing as "nothingness"...

There is more 'being' in nothingness than most people can even imagine.

What we consider being (I.e life on earth) could easily be considered nothing on a grand scale.. It's all about perception

Higgs boson pretty much proved that.

I still lean towards more than one Universe, more than one World. I base my opinion on "he's in a world of his own", and the duality of photons that says light exists in more than one form. The Universe is a binary event.

Virtual particles pop in and out of existence. They travel both forwards and backwards in time. This is why it's impossible for there to have been a time of "nothingness".

Quote: wroberson

I still lean towards more than one Universe, more than one World. I base my opinion on "he's in a world of his own", and the duality of photons that says light exists in more than one form. The Universe is a binary event.

But doesn't the word "universe" encompass all those worlds? It's like saying that you give 200% effort.

It does depend upon what one calls "nothing". Is energy nothing? Is potential energy nothing? Is kinectic energy nothing?
Since we've been in high school, we have heard of E=mc^2, that mass has an equivilent energy based upon mass and velocity. We also know that a particular frequency needs a particular energy to vibrate.at such rate. With both equations, the wave/particle duality is solved.

My point is that every mass-frequency-velocity has energy. In fact during fusion, one can account the apparent loss of mass,
as a gain of energy in the final product. So my answer is that there never really was nothing, but the something that existed very near
the origination, was of a different mass/energy ratio. What I'm not certain of is if this origin-state was in motion, and at what frequency.
The answers to those determine the original size. If moving at the speed of light, the mass is near-infinite which may limit size.
Regardless, it sure looks like fission into near-uncountable parts (re:explosion): some matter, and some anti-matter. Perhaps those
"dark regions" are anti-energy.

In the game of Creation, the only loser in the known Universe is anti-matter.

How is anti-matter the loser in creation? It is by far in more abundance than matter.

Its a loser beecause at some point during the initial time-period of existance, matter amd anti-matter coalesced from energy. Since the Explosion was not a perfect sphere, and not unifomly distributed, matter was/is favored. had there been balance mutual anhilation in balance would mean we're not here discussing this. Wikipedia's article can explain this a bit better than me. Suffice for me to say that a sphere exploded non-uniformly, creating an imbalance that favors matter.

Now when discussing dark-matter/dark energy, things get complicated. Its as if we're looking at a perfect black-box radiator, or hole, or blackhole explosion remnant (smoke from the Big Bang???). Most astro-geeks are still negotiating this reality.

I am still working on the speed-of-dark.

Quote: Buzzard

I am still working on the speed-of-dark.

I'm working *at* the speed of dark. :)

Quote: Mosca

But doesn't the word "universe" encompass all those worlds? It's like saying that you give 200% effort.

Yes. It's actually called the Multiple Worlds Interpretation or MWI for short.

If I wasn't trapped here by gravity, I would have the answer. I think that if I can get everyone's attention for a few minutes, I would ask everyone to bounce up and down in unison and see if we can get a little momentum.

Quote: wroberson

Yes. It's actually called the Multiple Worlds Interpretation or MWI for short.

If I wasn't trapped here by gravity, I would have the answer. I think that if I can get everyone's attention for a few minutes, I would ask everyone to bounce up and down in unison and see if we can get a little momentum.

I wish I had the right language to describe how perfectly clear this is to me. Our world is our perception. The more an individual perceives, the larger her/his world is. The universe is in your mind.

By extension, that which is unknowable is not of the universe. It is most literally inconceivable. You can think of this any way you want; if you want to consider the state of the universe before the Big Bang, and by your understanding the equations do not make sense or produce an answer, then that is not of the universe. Or if you want to consider the existence of a God, and your perception of the world leads you to include a god, then that is your universe.

And this isn't so different from the theory that each moment branches into infinite other moments.

For all that we propose that this or that is what the world really is, in the end it is all biology, it is all electrons and atomic states stored in living tissue. When the electricity is gone, that universe is gone. When your tissue no longer lives, your event horizon closes. There is no more universe.

You simply cannot separate the ideas from the flesh. It is all one thing, thought and perception.

Quote: Mosca

I wish I had the right language to describe how perfectly clear this is to me. Our world is our perception. The more an individual perceives, the larger her/his world is. The universe is in your mind.

By extension, that which is unknowable is not of the universe. It is most literally inconceivable. You can think of this any way you want; if you want to consider the state of the universe before the Big Bang, and by your understanding the equations do not make sense or produce an answer, then that is not of the universe. Or if you want to consider the existence of a God, and your perception of the world leads you to include a god, then that is your universe.

And this isn't so different from the theory that each moment branches into infinite other moments.

For all that we propose that this or that is what the world really is, in the end it is all biology, it is all electrons and atomic states stored in living tissue. When the electricity is gone, that universe is gone. When your tissue no longer lives, your event horizon closes. There is no more universe.

You simply cannot separate the ideas from the flesh. It is all one thing, thought and perception.

The formation of the universe sounds as simple as mitosis to me.

I still lean toward the Universe being created at the time of my birth. It makes sense that each of us were born into a Universe. One Universe for each conscious entity. Every one pulling and pushing on each other with cause and effect while sharing one at the same time. Maybe even a Universe for each particle living or not. Not sure if understanding plays a part. Can something unknown ever exist.

Quote: Buzzard

there was nothing

That's your mistake. There never was a distant past time of pure nothing. What expanded (not exploded) was the so-called "singularity." It damn sure was something, rather than nothing.