I’ve often thought this theory might be correct. (Does it have a name?)
Since any mathematical abstraction is as “real” as another in this theory, the “special status” of our universe might seem to be due to consciousness: beings in the mathematical abstraction are aware of themselves. But is this really special? After all, the mathematical abstraction includes human brains which, many would argue, are sufficient for consciousness.
In this “Everything Exists” Theory, fictions would be “real”, but it’s a WYSWIG system: you can’t impute a consciousness to Mickey Mouse that’s not present in the cartoons.
God doesn’t “wait”. You need to be subjected to time in order to wait through it.
Don’t know. What does being incapable of understanding all of God’s motives have to do with his existence?
Conversations (or speculation) about why God did this, or why God did that, are great to have, as long as all parties participating in the discussion accept God’s existence. Otherwise, each party just talks through each other.
You didn’t answer my question, let me repeat it:
I even removed the word “atheist” so that you can’t dodge the question by begging it.
Might one rephrase this to “The set of all existing universes is equal to the set of all valid mathematical systems”? Would it be fair to call this, for now, the “Vool Premise”?
The cartoon exists within our (presumably real) universe so has at least that reality. Conversely, our own non-fictional lives might be nothing more than a system of correlations within wave functions, just as would be a “Mickey Mouse” story. One wouldn’t live one’s life with that perspective, but you wouldn’t use the Vool Premise either for practical living, right? (What is your “all math systems exist” theory called, anyway, MaxtheVool? Surely you’re not the only one to think of it, but I don’t know how to Google for it.)
So is that why Jesus is so late in getting back? But if humanity and creation is important to God, you’d think he’d not have waited so long. Being omnipotent, he knew he was going to, right?
Quite a lot. The way this works is that there are two hypotheses - God as described by some religion (say Western ones) exist, or that God does not exist and the Bible is the result of humans writing knowing only what they knew at the time, 2700 years ago or so, when they wrote it.
The evidence points to the latter hypothesis. Your only support for the former seems to be throwing up your hands and saying “it’s a mystery.” Which religionists don’t seem to do when discussing morality. Unfalsifiable things are known very precisely, things that can be checked are mysteries. Very odd.
But the physical definition of nothing is a lot more subtle than you probably think. I’d guess that it would be an absence of particles of any type - even photons. Thus, nothing cannot exist in our universe. You might get away with defining a small region and time, through which no particles move - but then you have quantum foam, so you don’t quite have nothing even there.
“Before” the Big Bang (before in quotes because there is no time) there was no objects and thus no space - but was there quantum foam anyway? I don’t think anyone knows. We lack your confidence in the eternal pre-existence of a God who seems to be absent.
There’s a corollary to Murphy’s Law which states that regardless of ambient conditions of temperature, pressure, humidity, etc., if the bucket of shit can explode, it will explode. I’d like to posit that the proto-universe was not a singularity at all, but just a common, garden-variety bucket of shit. This hypothesis would be consistent with all observable phenomena occurring right now in the observable cosmos, and would neatly explain my entire life.
It is interesting that people disagree about whether or not a ‘nothing state’ is a reality or not. I’m in the no-nothing camp. Either from a theoretical standpoint, like I tried to explain upthread, or from a scientific standpoint, ‘nothing’ just doesn’t seem to hold up.
My scientific reasons are similar to Voyager’s, though ‘quantum foam’ is new to me. I view it in terms of vacuum energy:
Since any particular volume of ‘empty’ space contains some amount of energy, that space can be viewed through e=mc^2 to be the equivalent of some (infinitesimal) mass of matter. So, even empty space isn’t ‘nothing’. The virtual particle effects are therefore not examples of ‘something created from nothing’.
I think the math points toward ‘nothing’ never having existed, not even ‘before’ the universe(s) existed.
I was under the impression that both time as we know it and space as we know it both started with the big bang. So, ‘prior’ to the big bang, if such a term is even sensible, if there was any ‘place’ for anything to be, it’s something entirely separate and distinct from space-as-we-know-it. So, everything we know started with the bang, and if there was any time or space ‘prior’ to the big bang it was in an entirely separate context - even if all it contained was “nothing”. I myself imagine the distinction between such a place and our universe as the relationship between our universe and a book that exists in it; there is no point in the book prior to its beginning (excluding flashbacks), but there was a time in the larger world before there was even a book. Which is not to say there is a larger world that our universe rests within - that’s not knowable by us, arguably by definition.
Yes, well, that is the interesting thing about my little math invention. I would say we basically agree.
Assume it is as you say- ‘prior’ to the Big Bang, there is no space and no time. So what we’re looking at is something coming from nothing. At time 0, the very first instant of the Big Bang- and not the two trillionths of a second afterward for which different mathematical descriptions have been devised, I mean time zero- we do seem to be observing the emergence of something from nothing. Time zero is your 0 =! 0 moment, and it is here that my little math theory applies.
Ordinarily you’d never consider revoking Identity, but in this case observation demands it. No? Following through with it yields a math system in which there is merely the bare assertion of A, without the ability to do any operations or further mathematical work. So, the math suggests there isn’t ‘nothing’ (see, there is A) but that there isn’t anything more for science to know (cuz you can’t do any math). It doesn’t really add up- what is this A outside time and space that generates universes?- but then nothing from nothing doesn’t make sense either. Science can’t win in this case. of course I could be wrong
Well of course we know that you should send a donation and vote Republican, but other than that, there isn’t anything more for science to discover
But here’s the difference: So we build a super huge computer and are running a cellular automaton on it, one so complex that intelligent self-aware beings evolve inside it. At generation 1 trillion of the cellular automaton, there’s a power failure to our computer and we cease to run the simulation. Did the intelligent beings inside that cellular automaton “die”? Did they never get to live out the rest of their lives?
Assuming we accept what you’re generously calling the “vool premise” (and I agree that someone else must have thought of it but I honestly don’t know what its common name is), then because generation 1 trillion and 1 of the automaton is strictly mathematically defined based on generation 1 trillion, and so on (recursively), they have and have always had and will always have (from our time perspective) exactly as much existence as the 1 through 1 trillion generations that we simulated and watched.
That’s very different from a work of human creativity where the author dies half way through or something of that sort.
No. The presumption is that at time 0, there was a big bang. There was not a nothing at time 0 - if you are looking at all the times that ever existed/happened/occured, then there was always a something. To get ‘before’ there was something, you have to go completely off the starting end of the timeline - and then you still don’t find a ‘nothing’, because there’s nowhere to look for it. If the first page of a document is page 0, that doesn’t mean that you can find a blank page by looking at page -1, because there is no page -1.
Obviously, the question still exists, “why is there a universe/timeline at all?”, but it’s not a 0 =! 0 moment. Identity is never revoked; there simply is no such problem, explicitly because the theory is that time itself started with the big bang and there were no times prior.
Well that’s interesting, because if we have it your way we get the same result, which is the absence of nothing-states.
But still. It is in fact a 0 != 0 moment, because from where did a universe’s worth of energy come from? And at time zero, the mass of the universe is [sideways 8]/0, which is actually a double error if you think about it. Or triple! You say there is nowhere for it to come from. So… maybe you would like to take it from here with your alternative point. About where it came from. In terms of cause and effect.
ISTM Identity is revoked; we can see it demonstrated mathematically or by the observation that there appears to be an un-caused effect (which is another way of saying 0 != 0).
Well, for one thing, it makes the concept of God’s existence pretty much useless as a meaningful rational explanation for anything else.
The difference between theological hypotheses and scientific hypotheses* about the origin of the universe seems to be that theological hypotheses allow their proponents to feel good about their ignorance.
Scientists are generally somewhat disappointed and frustrated (as well as fascinated and intrigued) by the fact that they don’t understand the material cause(s) of the existence of the universe.
Creationists, on the other hand (using “creationist” to mean somebody who believes the origin of the universe is intrinsically impossible to explain without ascribing it to God), generally are satisfied and reassured by the fact that they don’t understand God, because it’s part of their faith that God is beyond human capacity to comprehend. Accepting that you can’t understand God is even morally desirable because it’s a form of giving praise and glory to God as highly exalted, which you’re supposed to do.
This, IMHO, is what gives creationists their epistemological smugness vis-a-vis scientists when discussing origin hypotheses. It’s not that they actually know more about such mysteries than scientists do, it’s just that they feel more virtuous about their ignorance.
I use “theological” and “scientific” rather than “theistic” and “atheistic” so as not to seem to be erroneously claiming that scientists are ipso facto atheists. Many scientists believe in a deity and/or other supernatural entities without invoking the supernatural in their scientific hypotheses.
As has been noted, there is a theory that the net energy of the universe is 0, which neatly kiboshes your identity problem by stating that the universe is currently at 0, it’s just that the 0 is arranged artfully.
Of course, if your question is what the cause of the universe itself was, that’s entirely different question, and mischaracterizing it as being the same as an in-universe ex-nihilo creation of energy doesn’t help you much. “Identity revocation” is when something is not equal to itself. A causeless universe isn’t that. So if I were you I’d drop the bad math, even though losing it will rob you of the ability to falsely claim that the statement “we’re not precisely sure why the universe happened” includes a math error.
Ok. Both you and CurtC are referring to this. I guess I’ll have to watch it. I have to admit that my first impression is that a net energy of zero would require an input to differentiate things into their clever opposites, but at 65 minutes I won’t be surprised if the lecture touches on that point.
I thought that was the question The origin of everything and all that, not just the origin of our universe from an older universe, and so on, but the source of it all. Draw a circle around all the meta-cosmoses and call that the universe, then ask, ‘what is the origin of everything?’ That’s how I’m taking it. Maybe the phrasing in itself begs the question-say there isn’t an origin at all. Or maybe it is the external view of ‘everything’ that is fallacious.
And still. If the problem with my characterization is the ‘in-universe’ part, again remember we’re talking about the origin of everything, so some external “agent”'s origin would also have to be explained, if that is what you’re getting at.
If I don’t drop the non-identity math then you are me, but you say you’d drop it, so we need another thread for this paradox
Kind of harsh to call it ‘bad math’. Revoking an axiom is fair game- consider non-Euclidian geometry.
I’m not sure if the consequences are that the universe is not equal to itself, but that the whole idea of something coming from nothing provides an instance of non-identity. Hence the non-identity math.
It could be a false claim, but I’m not playing with these ideas to pull your leg. It wouldn’t be an ‘error’ either. It seems to me like a collapse of mathematics when forced to follow the ‘observation’ all the way to time 0. The answer being this non-identity-math A is the origin of everything, conveniently immune to the laws of ordinary math and therefore a ‘believable’ ‘agent’ to pull off its paradoxical creation trick.
Yah sure the whole concept could be misguided. Gimme a couple days to watch that video and we’ll revisit my idea then.
But, it doesn’t cause an instance of non-identity. Identity is about comparison of something with itself. That’s why it’s called “identity”. If you have a problem with ex nihilo creation (assuming that’s what’s happening) then that’s another matter, but regardless it’s not an identity problem.
This is my main beef with your position, by the way. I’m not as strongly invested in arguing that the universe is currently in a zero-energy state; that’s really outside of my knowledge base, aside from the fact that such a theory exists.* However I do know enough to know that whatever other problems various scientific theories have, they’re not identity problems - and I don’t like scientific theories being mischaracterized with the aim to discredit them. And whether or not that’s your intent, that sure looks like where you’re going with this ‘identity’ business.
Personally, I’m in the “so far as I know we don’t, and maybe can’t, know with any certainty why the universe happened, due to our inability to observe outside it” camp, possibly due to my aforementioned ignorance. As such I’m willing to entertain various theories, to be assessed based on their alternate merits - and on that scale “the universe is at 0 energy” has a certain charm and simplicity that the less scientific theories lack.
I’m not out to falsely discredit any other theories. What I’ve done here is make one up myself. I guess that seems kind of clever of me, though if I’m totally wrong, this will wear off quickly.
Yes, you could say my issue is with ex-nihilo creation.
I’m viewing it as an identity problem (that is, a violation of x=x) because of its violation of conservation of energy. Maybe if I explain it again it will make sense? Or you can try again to explain why I’m wrong, I don’t mind, really.
-If (IF!) your cause is ‘nothing’, among other things that means zero energy.
-If the effect is the universe, that means either an infinite amount of energy, or some vast amount, I’m not really sure which.
-A consequence of the conservation of energy is that energy is neither created nor destroyed in cause-effect transactions. So, let C be the cause, E be the effect. In any case where you go from C -> E, the energy of C = the energy of E.
-In ex nihilo creation, we’re moving from 0 -> the universe. In energy terms, 0 != 0. And the rest of the theory follows.
Whether ex nihilo creation is the case or not is up for debate. But that seems to be the OP question, so, taking that as our ‘observation’, how do you mathematically describe it? Well, it demands the (non-erroneous) withdrawing of Identity.
The idea you’ve been describing is known as the mathematical universe hypothesis. I also find it appealing and plausible but of course have no way of determining its objective truth.
Of course, stating that reality is simply a complete collection of valid mathematical systems still gives you no explanation of its ontology. Basically, no matter what explanation we come up with for the universe (or multiverse, etc…), I don’t think we will ever be able to answer the question “why does anything exist?”. In fact, I would guess that the question itself is completely incoherent, even though it could be considered to be the true ultimate question.
The origin of everything and all that, not just the origin of our universe from an older universe, and so on, but the source of it all. Draw a circle around all the meta-cosmoses and call that the universe, then ask, ‘what is the origin of everything?’ That’s how I’m taking it. Maybe the phrasing in itself begs the question-say there isn’t an origin at all. Or maybe it is the external view of ‘everything’ that is fallacious.