Image: Illustration by Neil Webb
More In This Article
-
Overview
The Consolation of Philosophy
Why is there something rather than nothing? This is one of those profound questions that is easy to ask but difficult to answer. For millennia humans simply said, “God did it”: a creator existed before the universe and brought it into existence out of nothing. But this just begs the question of what created God—and if God does not need a creator, logic dictates that neither does the universe. Science deals with natural (not supernatural) causes and, as such, has several ways of exploring where the “something” came from.
Multiple universes. There are many multiverse hypotheses predicted from mathematics and physics that show how our universe may have been born from another universe. For example, our universe may be just one of many bubble universes with varying laws of nature. Those universes with laws similar to ours will produce stars, some of which collapse into black holes and singularities that give birth to new universes—in a manner similar to the singularity that physicists believe gave rise to the big bang.
M-theory. In his and Leonard Mlodinow’s 2010 book, The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking embraces “M-theory” (an extension of string theory that includes 11 dimensions) as “the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe. If it is finite—and this has yet to be proved—it will be a model of a universe that creates itself.”
Quantum foam creation. The “nothing” of the vacuum of space actually consists of subatomic spacetime turbulence at extremely small distances measurable at the Planck scale—the length at which the structure of spacetime is dominated by quantum gravity. At this scale, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows energy to briefly decay into particles and antiparticles, thereby producing “something” from “nothing.”
Nothing is unstable. In his new book, A Universe from Nothing, cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss attempts to link quantum physics to Einstein’s general theory of relativity to explain the origin of a universe from nothing: “In quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing. Such universes need not be empty, but can have matter and radiation in them, as long as the total energy, including the negative energy associated with gravity [balancing the positive energy of matter], is zero.” Furthermore, “for the closed universes that might be created through such mechanisms to last for longer than infinitesimal times, something like inflation is necessary.” Observations show that the universe is in fact flat (there is just enough matter to slow its expansion but not to halt it), has zero total energy and underwent rapid inflation, or expansion, soon after the big bang, as described by inflationary cosmology. Krauss concludes: “Quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothing—meaning ... absence of space and time—it may require them. ‘Nothing’—in this case no space, no time, no anything!—is unstable.”
The other hypotheses are also testable. The idea that new universes can emerge from collapsing black holes may be illuminated through additional knowledge about the properties of black holes, which are being studied now. Other bubble universes might be detected in the subtle temperature variations of the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the big bang of our own universe. NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft is collecting data on this radiation. Additionally, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) is designed to detect exceptionally faint gravitational waves. If there are other universes, perhaps ripples in gravitational waves will signal their presence. Maybe gravity is such a relatively weak force (compared with electromagnetism and the nuclear forces) because some of it “leaks” out to other universes.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
76 Comments
Add CommentThe Skeptic has once again nixed God. Unfortunately, his argument leaves me with more questions than answers. If our universe came from another universe,as the multiple universes section suggests,and that universe came from another universe and so on and so on, where did the first universe come from? M-theory has yet to be proved, so it is on the level with God. Quantum foam creation describes particles appearing from energy, which is sound physics. If it is to explain where everything came from, then the origin of the energy that leads to the particles must be explained. I'm not convinced that there is truly a way to get something from nothing, unless you employ some fancy bookkeeping, which leaves us with God and M-theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Skeptic has once again nixed God. Unfortunately, his argument leaves me with more questions than answers. If our universe came from another universe,as the multiple universes section suggests,and that universe came from another universe and so on and so on, where did the first universe come from? M-theory has yet to be proved, so it is on the level with God. Quantum foam creation describes particles appearing from energy, which is sound physics. If it is to explain where everything came from, then the origin of the energy that leads to the particles must be explained. I'm not convinced that there is truly a way to get something from nothing, unless you employ some fancy bookkeeping, which leaves us with God and M-theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Shermer is making the same mistake that Lawrence Krauss made: the vacuum is not "nothing". It has definite properties that allow the necessary quantum fluctuations to exist. Even a zero-dimensional space with no points is not nothing, especially if it allows for the field structure to be present. The way the question should be posed is as Parmenides (allegedly) put it in the 5th century B.C.: "How does being arise from non-being?" It is a very different question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI couldn’t help but be mystified by the reference to God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with God is not that God does not exist because what we call “God” does indeed exist. The Problem with God is that some people entertain fantasies, such as that God may be a bearded being sitting on a cloud, or that God can be petitioned to our own advantage, etc.
Allow me to share with you http://the-philosophy-of-science.blogspot.com/.
A hundred years ago, it was thought the universe was filled with something called 'ether' (spelling?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow we have dark matter. Have we just renamed it?
Perhaps if we remember, that the simplest answer to all this is that there is some sort of creation (therefore possibly a creator.) If we choose to try to avoid the possiblility of God, then we are closing the door to a possible (no matter how improbable you think it is) answer to the universe. What happened to the concept of: KISS?
George Snyder
When I think of the issues of "something from nothing," I don't think of how our current universe emerged from a parent universe. I consider the parent universe to be "something". Therefore, that is a case of "something from something." To me, a god would be "something," therefore a god-initiated creation is "something from something." Hypotheses such as Krauss' treat the laws of quantum physics as "nothing," but I consider them "something" and ask where those came from. I neither believe our quantum physics is the only possible laws of nature, nor do I believe any laws of nature can exist without a context (a "spacetime", a "universe", or something which they "belong" to.) Before the very first in the lineage of universes that [may have] led to our universe; before any primordial forms of mass, energy, space, time, dimensions, forces, etc. - how / where would laws of nature have resided? I have no answer to the conundrum - I just haven't been convinced by anyone else's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo put my previous comment another way: When Krauss says the laws of quantum physics existed before there was "something" but allowed [or required] the coming-into-being of "something" - it seems to me there are 2 alternatives:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) The presence of laws of quantum physics means there IS a substrata or such in which quantum events can [or must] occur. Even if the laws of physics aren't "something," the substrata is "something". Therefore, this isn't a case of "nothing" making "something".
2) The presence of laws of quantum physics doesn't mean there is a substrata where quantum events might occur. Therefore, merely the presence of laws doesn't provide all the prerequisites for quantum events. Without all the prerequisites, quantum events can't occur and the lack of quantum events prevents the coming-into-being of "something".
could it be as simple as that what we consider as "God" is really the law/structure that allows/causes the universe as we know it as well as the universes that we cannot know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisone more comment today:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome scientific theory is that time did not exist at the moment of creation (big bang) but really started sometime ?after? the initial big bang. If you choose to read Augustine, he came to the same conclusion from reading about creation in Genesis. Of course, this was 1600 years ago so what would he know.
There is a possibility that time is really relative to motion. Therefore could the motion of our world (galaxy) away from the point of the initial big bang be what causes time for us? Then, as long as the universe expands, time moves forward. If the universe stops expanding, would time stand still? If the universe started to contract, would time move in reverse? Perhaps, the universe is contracting and we only percieve time the only way we percieve it.
I just wish Michael Shermer would be as skeptical about science as he is about God. That would make this column much more interesting.
"The way the question should be posed is as Parmenides (allegedly) put it in the 5th century B.C.: "How does being arise from non-being?" It is a very different question."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps one day it will be rigorously proven that there is no possibility other than "being". There are some truths which cannot be otherwise, for example there is no possibility that pi could be anything other than 3.14159... Could not the same logic apply to existence itself?
I did it - I think, therefore you are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysics and Metaphysics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Polkinghorne and his book ‘ Quantum theory’.
================ .
I like to read his books because they raise many questions.
And these questions give information for brain to think.
John Polkinghorne took epigraph of his book ‘ Quantum theory’
the Feynman’s thought : ‘ I think I can safely say that
nobody understands quantum mechanics. ‘
Why?
Because, he wrote:
‘ ,we do not understand the theory as fully as we should.
We shall see in what follows that important interpretative
issues remain unresolved. They will demand for their
eventual settlement not only physical insight but also
metaphysical decision ’.
/ preface/
‘ Serious interpretative problems remain unresolved,
and these are the subject of continuing dispute’
/ page 40/
‘ If the study of quantum physics teaches one anything,
it is that the world is full of surprises’
/ page 87 /
‘ Metaphysical criteria that the scientific community take
very seriously in assessing the weight to put on a theory
include: . . . .’
/ page 88 /
‘Quantum theory is certainly strange and surprising, . . .’
/ page92 /
‘ Wave / particle duality is a highly surprising and
instructive phenomenon, . .’
/ page 92 /
Togetherness.
John Polkinghorne, as a realist, want to know
‘ what the physical world is actually like’, but until now
physicists don’t have the whole picture of Universe.
And in my opinion John Polkinghorne was right writing
what to understand the problems of creating the Universe:
‘ They will demand for their eventual settlement not only
physical insight but also metaphysical decision ’.
========.
Other remark.
Many years ago Aristotle wrote:
‘ The Nature is afraid of Nothingness’
and now the Quantum theory agrees with him
So, maybe, Aristotle was right separating the knowledge
of Nature on two parts: Physics and Metaphysics.
===== .
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
"But this just begs the question of what created God—and if God does not need a creator, (some people consider that) logic dictates that neither does the universe."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with this logic is that it is a non-causal one, and causality is a aspect of naturalism, so whilst it is fair to say that "if God needs no cause (a theistic argument), then the Universe needs not have one" is a supernatural argument on behalf of the Universe (a pantheistic argument).
Science deals with natural (not supernatural) causes and, as such, has several ways of exploring where the “something” came from. But all such scientific/natural explanations assume the laws of physics are a default "given" or thing of this nothing, and strictly speaking "nothing" has no laws or potentiality. So Science CAN NOT tell us "how something came from truly nothing", it can tell us, perhaps, how the something we observe and assume to be a material world came from a ideal material vacuum that had the laws of physics/space-time/causality (i.e., nature's potential) within it.
IMO, the problem is that "Science" is completely a creation of the human mind -- just like "God".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists assume that the human mind is capable of logically deducing and comprehending all causes and effects in the universe, yet this has not been proven -- and certainly isn't a logical assumption.
The scientific pursuit of understanding everything in the universe proceeds on the *faith* that the human brain is capable of seeing and defining everything in the universe.
At a certain level cosmology blends into philosophy, the two becoming nearly indistinguishable until the empirical burden is met. Is this article at that point? From the content and comments that follow it would seem that this is so. God/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Giant Invisible Teapot Outside the Orbit of Pluto=who the hell really cares? Everyday is a little bit of a surprise when I wake up (some days I'm surprised I even wake up). I see no problem with the State of Being after death being a surprise as well. If I could send a Death-O-Gram back from the Beyond to let everybody know what I find in a few months, I would.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't get your hopes up.
I have my doubts about some of these scientists and theologists who think and believe that you can actually get something from nothing. Our government from 2000 to 2008 thought that way. There is nothing in their heads, so you have seen nothing come out of their heads. There has to be something before you can get or make something from it. Our universe had to come from something, and I don't care what you call it...call it God if you want, but there had to be something there before something could come from it. It always has been and it always will be THAT something that everything else came from. Until you can transcend time and space, you will never know what THAT something is that everything else came from. Until you can transcend time and space and give me an understanding of what THAT is and were THAT is located and how THAT came into existence, I will allow my micro understanding of everything call THAT God, because It is beyond my understand and apparently It is beyond your understanding as well...but it will not always be that way; as the Universe expands, so does our knowledge of it, and if we humans can manage to stay here long enough to bring it all to an end, then we will understand where it all began and from what.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI some times have that attitude too... I am but a speck in time, so why should I give a damn where or how I came into being. I don't really give a damn, but there is something in me that keeps me forging forward with a glimpse of hope that someday I will stumble upon my existence and it will bring a smile on my face and that smile will be my existence. Since the Universe is trillions of years old, and since I am part of the Universe, that makes me the same age as the Universe, so maybe a smile on my face will be the only understanding I will ever have of my existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"God" (capitalized for unspecified reasons) who? Which one? Why just one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it's possible that pi could be another value. One simply has to posit a universe in which there's no such thing as a plane! In any case pi is a purely theoretical value. There has never been a circle in this universe of which the ratio of circumference and diameter is exactly pi (not least because pi has no exact value anyway!) nor will there ever be. For that matter there has never, strictly speaking, been a circle in this universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere has been a general confusion in science between the statements "God is not required to explain the Universe" and "There is no God" whilst in fact they are not logically connected in any way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOccam's Razor, which has been every bit as important to science as to philosophy and makes you a mere 700 years behind the times!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne should always worry when a scientist asks why something is than how something is. Why is about the meaning of a thing's existence: why is there something rather than nothing? How is there something rather than nothing is a scientific question. Why is a theological question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the scientific method was constructed to prescind absolutely from bringing God in to explain phenomena ("magical thinking" some call it), appealing to science to say you don't need the god hypothesis is a a classic case of begging the question. Even Skeptics are not exempt from the rules of logic.
Exact! 'Nothingness'is not vacuum which consists of physical properties. Is there nothingness outside the Universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately ninety nine percent of humanity think God is someone sitting in heaven. I am forced to conclude God is within us in the Present and eternal. But what if humanity disappears?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh come now.........I expected much more than this from my favorite responder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, isn’t the question moot as to whether God comes out of something or nothing given, for example, as shown in http://the-philosophy-of-science.blogspot.com/, that God (i.e., energy) is eternal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile the article “Much Ado about Nothing” was interesting, not surprisingly, Michael Shermer lumped all forms of theistic beliefs into a single pile. If I were to do something similar with regard to race, I’d be nailed to a wall and stoned. Not every religion says “God did it” and leaves it at that. Theistic religions, too, have several ways of exploring where existence comes from. I’m a theist, and I have long said that the sum of all things, including God, is zero.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo finite minds such as ours, infinite complexity and chaos are indistinguishable. It is therefore no argument to say that the universe and all the creatures that dwell therein come about by accident or the permutations of blind law and mechanical forces. “Creatorship,” as one religious source has it, “is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature.” There’s no beginning, no end and no cause. God and the universe just happen. There’s nothing “supernatural” about it. Skeptics don’t have to accept this infinite complexity hypothesis, but they cannot they logically oppose it.
Kierkegaard described personhood as the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and the temporal, Freedom and necessity — relating to itself. He was talking about human beings, but he could have been God’s personhood, too. If so, the net result is a loop in which something and nothing give birth to relativities and relations so complex that in comparison the human brain looks like an assembly of tinker toys. Totality, like the human brain, is a whole system feeding back on its parts and self-consciousness is in essence communal consciousness.
While the article “Much Ado about Nothing” was interesting, not surprisingly, Michael Shermer lumped all forms of theistic beliefs into a single pile. If I were to do something similar with regard to race, I’d be nailed to a wall and stoned. Not every religion says “God did it” and leaves it at that. Theistic religions, too, have several ways of exploring where existence comes from. I’m a theist, and I have long said that the sum of all things, including God, is zero.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo finite minds such as ours, infinite complexity and chaos are indistinguishable. It is therefore no argument to say that the universe and all the creatures that dwell therein come about by accident or the permutations of blind law and mechanical forces. “Creatorship,” as one religious source has it, “is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature.” There’s no beginning, no end and no cause. God and the universe just happen. There’s nothing “supernatural” about it. Skeptics don’t have to accept this infinite complexity hypothesis, but they cannot they logically oppose it.
Kierkegaard described personhood as the relating of a relation — a synthesis of the Infinite and the finite, Eternal and the temporal, Freedom and necessity — relating to itself. He was talking about human beings, but he could have been God’s personhood, too. If so, the net result is a loop in which something and nothing give birth to relativities and relations so complex that in comparison the human brain looks like an assembly of tinker toys. Totality, like the human brain, is a whole system feeding back on its parts and self-consciousness is in essence communal consciousness.
Very true, RobertF. It's impossible for the universe to not exist. The state of "nothingness" cannot exist without that which defines it -- the state of "somethingness." To put it another way, a time or place where there is no time or space is a logical absurdity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurmudgeon, #20, if scientists could explain (not just with a theory that hasn't been mathematically excluded, but with facts) how our universe got here, then the difference between the two statements that you mentioned would become significant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said: "... if such laws are deterministic—then God had no choice in the creation of the universe and thus was not needed." Then where did the laws come from? Your argument is too weak to warrant your heavy handed conviction that God is not needed.
Leonard Mlodinow told your friend Deepak Chopra that science can answer questions about the effects of the laws of the universe, but science cannot address the questions about where the laws come from. You are justified in using mathematics to project the known laws into the unknown (induction). Isn't it also justified to project what we know about the immaterial, logical mind into the unknown, in order to search out the source of the immaterial laws themselves? These laws are something real, and they are both "in this world" and "out of this world".
It is not very skeptical to say: "Let's ignore the source of the laws, and only observe the effects of the laws."
The traditional ontological argument for the existence of God asserts that "God" is the Perfect Being that necessarily exists. The world we experience obviously does not necessarily exist, because it is always changing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo to say that the universe was created by God is not so simply negated by the argument Michael Shermer makes here, "if God does not need a creator, logic dictates that neither does the universe". The universe is obviously contingent (not necessary), but if God is not contingent, then God might not be a vacuous concept.
However, a "Necessary Being" may not correspond to our "God-ideas", which are indeed many and varied - contingent, we might say. In particular, the idea that God "Created" the universe is problematic, because "creation" is a contingent action, that takes place within a universe, necessarily in time. Can a Necessary Being, prior to time, space, and everything conditional, create or even "Create"?
What can be said then? Perhaps not so much useful from a point of view within the universe. But if the universe is dependent on a Necessary Being, might it not be possible to transcend contingency and Realize Identity with that "position"? The world's mystical traditions do point to such a possibility - "Enlightenment", "God-Realization", "God-Union", "Perfect Knowledge" ...
This video presents such Testimony: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjOsz4BDkCE
Thanks very much, but my sin was in saying too much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI try to avoid discussions of religion and politics - mine was simply a Shakespearian free association.
Maybe I'll have better luck next time...
We are told "‘Nothing’—in this case no space, no time, no anything!—is unstable.” There seems to be a logical absurdity in this statement Only something that exists can have attributes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow wise Einstein was when he said "To the extent that the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not true; and to the extent that they are true, they do not refer to reality." and "I do not deny the importance of math, however, it's just that I think that science should come first! Abstract math seems to be the lubricant for hammering square pegs into round holes." Further: "My point is basically that math should be subordinate to empiricism, and that the current crisis in cosmology has resulted, in no small part, from this role reversal!"
Could the multiverse theory be a case of hammering square pegs into round holes?
"nothing," says this about the existence of antimatter (non-proton-electron), which creates an absolute nothing interaction with matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobertF, you know, it's all pi in the sky! It is fascinating that this scientific discussion has turned into a philosophical one. In the beginning God created...a belief in God, and by the way, He also created Darwinism.(Just to fog our thinking)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDelving into particle physics is like looking into a fractal image. The further you go, the more you see.
A couple of questions:If you use energy, and it does work, is the energy diminished, in any way? I understand that it cannot be destroyed, but what does it change to, and can it be re-used? (sounds a bit like perpetual motion!)
I forgot to add a thought that occurred to me: The Universe is deaf, dumb, and blind (and probably stupid). Without us to observe it, it might as well not exist. What is the point of it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne more go! There was no Big Bang (no sound in a vacuum) and it was not big: It was tiny. Probably the expression is an example of scientific humour!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientist do indeed get something from nothing: they get grants from the government.The government get the money from the Federal Reserve(no more federal than Federal Express, by the way!)The Federal Reserve create money out of nothing. Admittedly when they print it, that costs money. Who pays for that, and what with?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, as you say, not only is the question moot as, for example shown in http://the-philosophy-of-science.blogspot.com/ that God (energy) is eternal, but it also shows to be moot the eternity of that individuality that we call “soul”, as well as the single and only contribution of what we call “life”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael Shermer’s evangelistic attempts to prove that there is no God are no different than the bible thumper’s evangelistic attempts to prove that there is a God. It is just the other side of the coin. A true scientist maintains an open mind. Therefore the adamant denial of any existence of a God is as out of place in a magazine dedicated to science as if a statement would be made that the earth is only six thousand years old because the bible says so. To deny or maintain any concept based solely on one’s personal beliefs is unscientific. Perhaps his writings should be included in this magazine under the title of “Bad Science and Bad Theology” rather than “Skeptic.” His fixation on God might be his own attempt to convince himself that his faith (agnosticism) is true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo make this truly a valid scientific inclusion in this magazine, all options should be given air.
In fact, if a column titled “Bad Science and Bad Theology” were to be incorporated into Scientific American, it would be an interesting concept. Maybe it would be a good way to add a bit of humor to lighten up the day for real scientific readers. I know as a writer, I would find it fun to submit articles for such a column.
George Snyder
Okay, you smacked me kinda hard on that one, but I can't argue with something I agree with, so let me pat you on the back and agree with you that there was no "Big Bang". That is just plain stupid. For there to be a big bang, there had to be something that caused it...so what caused the "Big Bang!" if there was actually nothing there to cause the Big Bang...nothing from nothing; yeah right? I have always believed that we are all connected in this Universe, and all the other Universes you can think of. We don't die and disappear as religion would have us believe. We are this Universe and when we compose, or turn back to atoms; our atoms goes back into the Universe and in let's say, a trillion Earth years, we come back together as something else, like a planet - where we reform, if the climate is right according to Earth...into another human, if not, into something else. There is no God because we are the God (intelligence) that is causing all this to happen with our repetition, and one point in space and time, we just "were" and we do not know what brought us into being for the formation of this Universe. The Universes always was, so there is no use in looking for its beginning, because we are its beginning and its ending, if that is possible. For you small brain demigods, or worker ants that brings all the atoms together, if you prefer, you will never understand this because it is not meant for you to understand. You can continue with your theories until your heat explodes and you will never be right until you realize that you are what you are theorizing about. So, I will see you in Universe 475 - planet 2 at the Casbar because there are some ants there that need our help carrying come dirt to form a mountain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy personal view is that the Universe consists of *both* something and nothing. Indeed, this is the fundamental premise upon which my own view of the Universe was consolidated in 1996. Discussing these matters can be confusing because two people may have very different views on what "something" and "nothing" are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Something" and "Nothing" do not need to be simply vague pedagogical concepts. They can be used to logically develop a consistent physical model of the Universe which intrinsically explains gravity.
The crux of deploying these concepts constructively lies in understanding that "something" moving through "nothing" does not obey the same laws of physics as an object moving through space. Philosophers can raise questions about the existence of extension in "nothing", but these questions are addressable.
Richard
If X explains why the universe was created, what created X? This works just as well when X is quantum gravity as it does when X is God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany years ago, Mandelbrot discovered the Mandelbrot set. However the Mandelbrot set 'existed' before Mandelbrot discovered it. In fact it is highly plausible that alien minds have been admiring the chaotic patterns of the Mandelbrot set for billions of years before its discovery on earth. The Mandelbrot set exists outside of time, a product of pure logic. It seems likely that there are more complex patterns similar to the Mandelbrot set. Perhaps we are living in one.
Being "skeptical about science" doesn't really make sense. It's like saying 'being skeptical about being skeptical'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Shermer's thesis that we shouldn't believe in God wasn't scientific or even rational - his argument that universes can create themselves without a first mover was absurd - and his column was nothing more than an unfounded attack on religious beliefs. He has the audacity to claim, "if God does not need a creator, logic dictates that neither does the universe." This shows a total ignorance of the logic in the arguments for the existence of God which demonstrate that God is not OF this universe and thus doesn't share the same nature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is one thing to talk about M-theory from a scientific point of view; it is quite another to jump to conclusions in other fields that one has no competence in. When you merely regurgitate others' work without participating in their area of research, you run the risk of misinterpretation or misapplication of their work.
Mr. Shermer says at the end of the article, "before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not of this world." Perhaps he should tell himself, "before you condemn others' arguments, make sure you understand them."
Why Scientific American would publish such unscientific tripe is beyond me. Mr. Shermer, stick to areas you have competence in - if there are any.
My major problem with all of the possible theories of Universal Creation is: Before the creation event there could not have been either space or time. If there had been space - an empty universe - before the big bang then the big bang didn't create the universe, it simply populated it with matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order for Time function, something would have to be avaiable to "age" otherwise the concept is meaningless. If there wan't anything, what was being timed? I was taught that the Big Bang brought both space and time into existence and that as the universe expands it creates the space into which it is expanding rather than expanding into some great emptyness.
All the theories listed presuppose a reality rather than a nothingness. If there was a reality, even if it were just empty space, then we aren't discussing creation, we are arguing about what happened after the creation.
I still read a lot of comments from people that think in terms of "before", and "what caused what". I read also comments about "infinite" being a math concept, but not a thing in the real world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo those people, I urge them to read some complexity science, calc down by hand some simple fractals. There is infinite in nature; indeed, infinitude is what defines existence. It's not surprising that the universe, or multiverses themselves are infinite. Many of the phenomenon we observe can be seen as the result of "simple" infinite, as the resonance frequencies in an electronic circuit. Others are a bit more complex to grasp, as the field equation of an electron around a nuclei, or the strange attractors that define the orbit of simple particles.
Yet they point to the fact that the question "what was there before the universe" is actually a meaningless question, like asking what's "the first man", or "was there an egg or a chicken". There's no "before", but an endless, self-defined, self-consistent space-time in which the symmetry breaking can occasionally arise a set of large objects as our visible universe. For how large it is, for how long it can last, it's still nothing compared to the endless eternal space-time, and so it exists. It can exist because of that only, and thanks to that alone.
"Where this endless space-time comes from" is a meaningless question, again, like asking why we think we exist. More interesting is to know HOW we think we exist, and similarly, HOW the space-time "is".
Someone may point out that this idea of an eternal-endless space-time looks like a god. Self-defined, self-consistent, not needing further explanation. Well, yes, it's "like" a god, but it doesn't require to be conscious or willful (nor can be, but this requires another long explanation). Occam razor at work: even given that we need a prime entity (but if we view it under the complexity science epistemology, space-time it's just another self-defined entity), there's no need to cast will and intention on it. Need something big and prime to wrap your head around the universe? -- skip a passage, and go directly to the space-time.
The scientists these days pride themselves for their efforts of searching for 'facts', but they will embrace the most whacked out, round the bend ideas! This universe has got rules: logical, orderly, laws. Until 'gravity' is explained, the scientific community is just wasting time and money. (Gravity is not a 'pull'; it is a 'push'.) When they are ready to listen, contact me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are no data available to hypothesize about objects or events outside of our universe. Nor can be hypothesize about events in a black hole. And we cannot gather date about some objects and events in our universe. So, we have an excellent basis to speculate about where we came from and other universes outside of our own. Because I am of the belief that it is not possible to get something from nothing, I speculate that our universe derived from the stuff of which the meta universe is composed. This, I speculate further, is a thick energy field which, from time to time in this timeless realm, produces bubbles, which then expand into universes. It follows, then, that there are many, in the sense of trillions and trillions, of universes in this meta realm. Some are just starting out; some have an age very much like out own; and some are much older. And there is very probably life, some of which is very advanced, in many of the star systems in many of the galaxies, in many of the universes. Of course it is impossible for any communication to occur between universes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have not yet effectively investigated the star systems in our Milky Way. And there are many other galaxies. Time, of course, is a major obstacle. So, not to worry about our inability to communicate with other universes.
Jacob Silver, #50, it seems that the meta universe that you propose would require the same explanations that our universe requires. Namely, how did it get there? Using a string of universes to explain where our universe came from only answers part of the question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJonnymind, #48, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around what you said. As I understand it, space-time exists within our universe, which is a finite entity. If, and it's still a big if and may always be, there are other universes and ours was born in the black hole of a previous universe or something, then space-time exists inside of those finite universes as well. There is no area between universes, as I understand it, so space-time would be finite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was disappointed to read Mr Shermer's misuse of the erroneous cliche "beg the question" where he meant something like "raise the question." The term "beg the question" identifies a logical fallacy in which a syllogism's conlcusion is one of the premises. I suppose at one time it sounded learned and erudite so that less-well educated people used the term to mean "raise the question" in order to sound erudite, when, in fact they revealed their own lack of learning. However, the term has been so wrongly used so much that I suppose today a dictionary might admit it with the lesser meaning. But I had expected better of Mr.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA comment on # 46:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe Scientific American continues to publish Mr. Shermer's "tripe" because it generates this type of response. In my own opinion, the possibility of God or god or at least something we do not understand should also be considered by anyone who in interested in science.
A comment on # 47:
Science now theorizes that time did not begin at the (silent, small) big bang, but sometime ?after. In his studies of the bible, Augustine determined that God created time, but not on day one. Perhaps we do need to keep an open mind?
A comment on # 49:
There is no such thing as gravity. Everything sucks.
(If you have no sense of humor, why bother breathing?)
A comment in general:
I have said it before, "bad science and bad theology."
Let's not confuse ourselves with facts.
George Snyder
One comment said intil we define what gravity is,we will not have an answer to the rest of the questions.I say instead that it is space that needs to be defined.Dualality is a clue.When we look at particle function we are looking at E=mc^2,and when we look at wave function we are looking at space.That is why we can't look at both at the same time,because they are not the same thing.What we need is for somebody to complete the equation E=mc^2=space?.As for time it is nothing more than mass and energy moving through space and or space moving around them.The faster the slower time proceeds,proof that they can't be in the same place.Mass/energy displaces space.It is as another commenter said it is push not pull and that is what gravity is.If the universe is exspanding,what is it exspanding in to?If it were space or something else like it,logic suggest that it would be slowing down,but it isn't?So it must be something less than space.As for God all we need to do is look at the fact that we are the universe looking at itself.Why can't something else be doing the same thing before or after the big bang?In the Bible it says that we can't look at the face of God and live.Could it be that as the Bible suggest,that we are a piece of God and that when we look we see are own face?No wonder the Lucifer thought he could win.After all if God is real so is he,and as they all say the Devil is in the details.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobertF,
"The way the question should be posed is as Parmenides (allegedly) put it in the 5th century B.C.: "How does being arise from non-being?" It is a very different question."
Yes if by this you mean where does 'consciousness' originate.
Always the difficulty seems to be "Well what happened 'before' this?
So it seems that until we deal with this question we are just wasting ink.
GSnyder, yes but still the question remains that these 'laws' are our constructs, until we can get 'behind' our view of the universe we are just spinning our wheels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo we 'understand' (?) these laws but that doesn't really move us forward, until we fetch consciousness into the equation.
I personally have no idea how this would be but my hope is that somebody out there has a clue.
I think the ancient Greeks had a better answer: Nothing can come from nothing. Everything that exists has always existed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no nothing. Only something exists. The relevant question is what. Not why. What is about existence. Why is a conjecture and ultimately meaningless.
Thought: is there a size to it, or an age, or is it just an ability to ask 'why'? To exist, to think, is it enough to 'be'? No, it is not. A reason must be found, and the 'Devil' is in the search.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo James Davis and others
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Until you can transcend time and space, you will never know what THAT something is that everything else came from. Until you can transcend time and space and give me an understanding of what THAT "
I agree with your views that until we transcend beyond space/time, we can not know what lies beyond space-time But kindly give some thoughts to following also
Our entire thinking apparatus - having unfathomable reach of logic, imagination, visualization and whatsoever definable or un-defineble, which comes within the realm of mind and brain, is born "within and out of Space/ Time". As such, our thinking process can not transcend Space and Time. But it is the "thinking process" which can't transcend Space-Time AND not "I" OR "WE. "I", as consciousness, is beyond body,brain, mind -- is perceiver of whatever goes within Mind and Body. It is a drop of consciousness emanating from That endless ocean of consciousness -- which we call God.. This process of transcendization" of "I" or "WE" beyond Space/Time is the crux of Eastern mystical thought. But beauty of this transcendization is that when "I" goes beyond Space/Time, "I" dissolves into that endless ocean of consciousness, which is THAT" -- God which encompasses the entire universes (multi verses) within its womb. Eastern mystical Philosphy, especially Upnishadas, state that all multi verses including space/Time, emerge out from THAT endless ocean of consciousness and dissolves into that. "We" also emerge out of THAT and on completing the process of "transcedance" shall merge into THAT. It is like when a wave goes deep into ocean, it ceases to exist. Until "I" exist, That can not be approached and when That becomes approachable, "I" dissolves into that. These are deep mystical thoughts as given in Upnishadas. And sages of Upnishadas or for that matter of any school of religion/sprituality/Religion were not mere theoretical scientists, indulging into intellectual acrobatics like us, but empirical scientists. They gave their thought after deep contemplation, practical experience
To Skeptics, if some thing exist within space-time, by logical corollary, some thing should also exist beyond space-Time. If light exist, darkness is a natural corollary. And that some thing is neither"something' nor " "nothing" but that is "everything"
It is not within the the scope of Physics to peep beyond space/time. Let science may restrict itself within Space/time and study the nature
To James Davis and others
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Until you can transcend time and space, you will never know what THAT something is that everything else came from. Until you can transcend time and space and give me an understanding of what THAT "
I agree with your views that until we transcend beyond space/time, we can not know what lies beyond space-time But kindly give some thoughts to following also
Our entire thinking apparatus - having unfathomable reach of logic, imagination, visualization and whatsoever definable or un-defineble, which comes within the realm of mind and brain, is born "within and out of Space/ Time". As such, our thinking process can not transcend Space and Time. But it is the "thinking process" which can't transcend Space-Time AND not "I" OR "WE. "I", as consciousness, is beyond body,brain, mind -- is perceiver of whatever goes within Mind and Body. It is a drop of consciousness emanating from That endless ocean of consciousness -- which we call God.. This process of transcendization" of "I" or "WE" beyond Space/Time is the crux of Eastern mystical thought. But beauty of this transcendization is that when "I" goes beyond Space/Time, "I" dissolves into that endless ocean of consciousness, which is THAT" -- God which encompasses the entire universes (multi verses) within its womb. Eastern mystical Philosphy, especially Upnishadas, state that all multi verses including space/Time, emerge out from THAT endless ocean of consciousness and dissolves into that. "We" also emerge out of THAT and on completing the process of "transcedance" shall merge into THAT. It is like when a wave goes deep into ocean, it ceases to exist. Until "I" exist, That can not be approached and when That becomes approachable, "I" dissolves into that. These are deep mystical thoughts as given in Upnishadas. And sages of Upnishadas or for that matter of any school of religion/sprituality/Religion were not mere theoretical scientists, indulging into intellectual acrobatics like us, but empirical scientists. They gave their thought after deep contemplation, practical experience
To Skeptics, if some thing exist within space-time, by logical corollary, some thing should also exist beyond space-Time. If light exist, darkness is a natural corollary. And that some thing is neither"something' nor " "nothing" but that is "everything"
It is not within the the scope of Physics to peep beyond space/time. Let science may restrict itself within Space/time and study the nature
Why is there something rather than nothing? Maybe we'll finally get some insightful thinking. But no, the question is completely avoided and off we go once again into the land of fuzzy thinking, irrelevant distractions and absurd statements. The question is asking why anything exists, where the alternative seems to be that there is no existence - no reality. So, look at the statement that "Nothing is unstable". Or, "In Quantum Gravity..." . It doesn't matter how that sentence is finished. And let's not even get into how background radiation relates to the original question. If there is no existence, there is no Quantum Gravity, nothing to be stable or unstable, nothing that can change state, no states to change to. In fact, you really can't use words like "there". If we think about the question carefully, it might lead to a better understanding about how we look at reality. As properly defined, it is impossible to get from nothing to something. If something has "always" existed, that implies that cause and effect might be a property only of our particular reality, or some sort of clever and pervasive illusion. Are our brains programmed to view reality this way? There's a huge paradox here. Shermer's article shows how the question is avoided and the word "nothing" is thrown around carelessly. The assumption is made that something kind of mysterious has always existed, and we're going to call that "nothing" so we don't have to worry about it. Let's not talk about how "nothing" came from lack of existence. We can now pretend that we're dealing with the real question in a scientific manner. Continuing our leap of logic, we can give this "nothing" any properties we want as long as a universe can pop out of it somehow. Shermer's last paragraph shows how he buys into this thought process uncritically. Very disappointing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer reminds me of the scientist who discovered how to create life from dust just as God did it. To show the Creator how easy it was for man to duplicate the miracle of life, the scientist bent over to scrape together a small pile of dust. "Whoa! God said, "First you go get your own dirt!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis entire article goes to prove Shermer's point tho...something from nothing!
The deeper conclusion of the original cosmological argument that Shermer misses is it's original conclusion:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere must have been an extra peculiar Something capable of bring itself into being - otherwise there would be nothing.
Some phycists call this somthing the Universe and call themselves atheists. Some theists call this something God and see science as the enemy of religion. People are strange and having a PhD do not eliminate the strangeness.
Bravo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot all conceptions of deities require consciousness or a will. For that matter, not all conceptions of human beings require consciousness or a will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy apologies - I thought my comments would attach to the posts I was commenting on. I didn't mean to "Bravo" myself!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Shermer has invented a new form of logic. If A does not require X, "logic dictates" that B does not require X.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the kind of shabby thinking we get from atheists. And they expect us to take them seriously.
The field of Physics has been confounded for nearly a century with intractable puzzles. It is also rife with contention between religious and atheist points of view, with both sides claiming proofs, or more precisely, un-proofs, for their points of view. A recent example is Michael Shermer’s “Skeptic” column in the May 2012 Scientific American, titled “Much Ado about Nothing”. Mr. Shermer borrows his title from Shakespeare’s romantic farce, a remarkably apt context for his article, but he is apparently oblivious to the irony. My detailed response is posted on the ISAS Forum:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://swedenborgcenterconcord.org/wordpress/explaining-the-puzzles-of-physics/
Hi Mike,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"[WMAP] is collecting data". No longer. See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/. But Planck is collecting even better data (higher resolution), although the main mission was concluded in January (now the instruments are less sensitive since they ran out of coolant). See: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Planck/index.html
Pedro Augusto
If a 'separate universe' impinges on 'our universe' in a detectable way, by gravitational tuggings or what have you, isn't it really all one universe again? At any rate, in order for nothing to be REALLY nothing, you have to take everything, including possibilities, potentials, and teetering equations of the subtlest (and unintuitive!) qualities, and put them in a circle... then take away everything in the circle... then take away the circle. "Nothing" in the sense of this article is just Everything in a sort of winter phase. The article's title is unconvincing to this bundle of quarks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer is as competent to discuss religion as Jimmy Swaggart or the Pope is to discuss abstract science. Why do you keep furnishing him an audience. Surely there are competent persons can add useful thoughts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course there are no absolute answers, but there are intelligent questions, Shermer has never postulated one.
Apropos of nothing, I frequently ponder Gertrude Stein's dying remark, "What is the answer?" When she received no answer from her longtime companion, her last words were, "Then what is the question?'
OldRoy
So we are back to God! And back to extolling our scriptures while denigrating science. Pity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMuch Ado about Nothing is a most appropriate title since Shermer writes 700 words to say essentially nothing. "There are many multiverse hypotheses predicted from mathematics and physics that show how our universe may have been born from another universe." What does this sentence mean? My understanding of mathematics is that there are proven theorems and unproven conjectures but how, exactly, does mathematics predict a hypothesis? Is that the same as proof and if it is then why is it still called a hypothesis? After that, can a hypothesis then be used to prove something else, in this case, "show how our universe may have been born"? Interesting that the word "may" is included - The skeptic in me is really starting to take over.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArguing from analogy is always risky. Shermer writes, "But this just begs the question of what created God—and if God does not need a creator, logic dictates that neither does the universe." But then another question begs to be asked: If the universe can create itself out of nothing then why can't God do the same? The next step is then back to "God did it."
Nowhere does Shermer actually state whether he believes that the various multiverse hypotheses are competing and incompatible with each other. Or if they can co-exist in reality – anything goes as long as God is kept out. By all means, let's keep God out of science but if we use any means at all then we stop doing science. For example, "Nothing is unstable" is very reminiscent of the theological reasoning used to explain the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
I conclude with a paraphrasing of the last sentence in the essay. We would be wise to heed this skeptical principle: before you say something is science, first make sure that it is science.
I enjoyed reading the scientific part of the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe discussion on the existence of God, while interesting, is obviously not science, and also has a flaw: Something may have proofs of its existence, even if its existence is not necessary to explain a specific thing.
For example: You can explain the universe very well without postulating *my* existence; nevertheless I exist, as my loved ones can testify, and this comment also proves it.
The existence of God is a personal reality for many-many millions of people. There is also tangible evidence, such as sudden and dramatic healing from well-documented incurable and inoperable diseases. It is at least dubious to say that science will be able to explain these cases some day, as you would need to postulate the existence of intelligent natural forces, which know the structure and genetics of humans.
If you are interested in truth, not just explicating a theory, you need to look into that evidence - even though it is not scientific, but historical; or I should say, the kind of evidence we usually rely on in our everyday lives.
All the best!
I agree with you, Mr. Shermer’s statement is not logical. However, it would be logical if you add the minor premise: A = B (i.e., Universe = God). This would make Mr. Shermer’s conclusion quite logical. And, ironically, this seems to suggest that Mr. Shermer may not be as atheistic as we, or even he, believes. By putting his statement in the form of a logical dictate, he has implied that Universe = God, which is not something you’d expect from an atheist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this