From Nothing to Existence

[The Introvert]

Not sure exactly where this thread should go, as it is basically philoso-science.

I was attending a teaching with my religious friend last Thursday and something said by the speaker caught my attention.

Spoiler

If you're wondering why I was attending a teaching, then by all means ask. It's a long story and really doesn't belong in the OP. Be more than happy to explain in the posts after, however.

The topic that intrigued me was the validity of science vs. the validity of religion (Christianity, to be precise) and the points that the speaker attempted to use to nullify science (specifically the Big Bang Theory [BBT]) and thus promote Christianity (read: the existence of God).

Vis a vis Yeti's "This is my serious face (religion)" thread, I mentioned this topic. I'm interested in what you guys think about the validity of the statement, (as I'm fairly ignorant on the subject) and the sense (if any) my response to it makes. So, here goes:

Religious point: The BBT implies that something (read: everything) spontaneously sprouted from nothing. This is highly illogical. Thus, it is more reasonable to believe in a creator (Christian God) than to believe that something came from nothing.

Scientific point (either): It is nonsense to ask about what came "before" the big bang, because it is beyond the scope of current technology to answer.

Scientific point (or): The Big Bang is the beginning of space and time. It is the beginning of everything, therefore there literally could not be anything before.

The Introvert's point: Doesn't the existence of the universe, using the rules by which it is governed (Newton's 3rd law) necessitate that there must also be nothing? As in, because there is matter, must there not also be no matter? Maybe I am stretching what the rule says (as I'm pretty sure it only adheres to forces) but I feel like there is a possibility of a legitimate argument for this.

Just as time as a relative is endless, so is the absence of time. So, since existence of matter is endless, so is absence of matter. For everything to exist, paradoxically, nothing must have existed.

Just as the tangent lines of a wavelength, if calculated ad infinitum, on either side of the curve add up to zero, the existence of everything is simply the middle of the spectrum (or perhaps one end of the spectrum?) and the reality that we perceive is simply the average of any given point on the curve and its opposite, negative, counter-part.

Is there a flaw in my thought process here?

Open to all and any debate: just please keep it relevant to something in the OP.

 

[Duxwing]

Not sure exactly where this thread should go, as it is basically philoso-science.

I was attending a teaching with my religious friend last Thursday and something said by the speaker caught my attention.

Spoiler

If you're wondering why I was attending a teaching, then by all means ask. It's a long story and really doesn't belong in the OP. Be more than happy to explain in the posts after, however.

The topic that intrigued me was the validity of science vs. the validity of religion (Christianity, to be precise) and the points that the speaker attempted to use to nullify science (specifically the Big Bang Theory [BBT]) and thus promote Christianity (read: the existence of God).

Tell us the story!

Vis a vis Yeti's "This is my serious face (religion)" thread, I mentioned this topic. I'm interested in what you guys think about the validity of the statement, (as I'm fairly ignorant on the subject) and the sense (if any) my response to it makes. So, here goes:

Religious point: The BBT implies that something (read: everything) spontaneously sprouted from nothing. This is highly illogical. Thus, it is more reasonable to believe in a creator (Christian God) than to believe that something came from nothing.

And what created the God? Did he arise from nothingness? If so, then he must be supernatural, and therefore unknowable.

Scientific point (either): It is nonsense to ask about what came "before" the big bang, because it is beyond the scope of current technology to answer.

Scientific point (or): The Big Bang is the beginning of space and time. It is the beginning of everything, therefore there literally could not be anything before.

The second one is correct, especially considering that time is not infinite in both directions; otherwise, we would never have reached this point in time, nor the point in time five minutes from now.

The Introvert's point: Doesn't the existence of the universe, using the rules by which it is governed (Newton's 3rd law) necessitate that there must also be nothing? As in, because there is matter, must there not also be no matter? Maybe I am stretching what the rule says (as I'm pretty sure it only adheres to forces) but I feel like there is a possibility of a legitimate argument for this.

Well there's your problem. Newton's third law of motion was a model of freely moving bodies, not an abstract philosophical idea. Moreover, quantum physics is most likely what created the universe-- not macrophysics.

Just as time as a relative is endless, so is the absence of time. So, since existence of matter is endless, so is absence of matter. For everything to exist, paradoxically, nothing must have existed.

Your premise is incorrect (see above). Therefore, your argument is invalid.

Just as the tangent lines of a wavelength, if calculated ad infinitum, on either side of the curve add up to zero, the existence of everything is simply the middle of the spectrum (or perhaps one end of the spectrum?) and the reality that we perceive is simply the average of any given point on the curve and its opposite, negative, counter-part.

Arguments from analogy aren't good science. Try to actually describe the system. Use math.

And, of course, @Architect We've got a boy in need of an education!

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

Tell us the story!

I will! After I reply to this post

And what created the God? Did he arise from nothingness? If so, then he must be supernatural, and therefore unknowable.

That question was asked, and the answer given was: God must have existed since the beginning of anything, before the existence of the universe, on a spiritual plane. From this spiritual plane, he created all the universe that we see now.

Spoiler

A very poor explanation, if you ask me

The second one is correct, especially considering that time is not infinite in both directions; otherwise, we would never have reached this point in time, nor the point in time five minutes from now.

Is time linear, though? Both the subjective and objective view of time.

I'm truly asking. I think this point is based on the assumption that time is linear, which I think is technically debatable? I'm not trying to debate this however, as I honestly don't know.

Well there's your problem. Newton's third law of motion was a model of freely moving bodies, not an abstract philosophical idea. Moreover, quantum physics is most likely what created the universe-- not macrophysics.

Yes, I feared that I had misapplied it

However, this is why I posted in Philosophy, and not Science

Speaking purely philosophically, how much 'weight' (if this term can even be acknowledged in a philosophical debate) does my idea hold?

Your premise is incorrect (see above). Therefore, your argument is invalid.

Assume that we perceive cycles and paradoxes in the universe. I believe the premise of my argument (scientific claims notwithstanding) still stands firmly.

Arguments from analogy aren't good science. Try to actually describe the system. Use math.

Bah, I just assumed math wasn't needed to explain this. It's a simple concept, and I don't know how to write a sigma in an internet forum

 

[Duxwing]

I will! After I reply to this post

Yay!

A very poor explanation, if you ask me

Then why do you believe it? (assuming that you do)

Is time linear, though? Both the subjective and objective view of time.

Time doesn't exist, actually. It's just a way to measure the rate of change.

However, this is why I posted in Philosophy, and not Science

Science = Philosophy + Many Assumptions + Cool Technology

Speaking purely philosophically, how much 'weight' (if this term can even be acknowledged in a philosophical debate) does my idea hold?

Considering that I'm a bit lost on what your idea even is, I'm going to say about nothing. I don't mean to be mean, yours was an honest attempt!

Assume that we perceive cycles and paradoxes in the universe. I believe the premise of my argument (scientific claims notwithstanding) still stands firmly.

I'd assert that paradoxes arise simply due to a lack of understanding.

Bah, I just assumed math wasn't needed to explain this. It's a simple concept, and I don't know how to write a sigma in an internet forum

I was just poking a bit of fun.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

As for the reasons behind my attending the teaching:

My religious friend has been (apparently) trying to convert(?) me to Christianity for some time now. After many turned-down offers to attend teachings and studies, I eventually let in and decided to go to one with him.

Since that time, I have been invited to every single event.

I've attended home-teachings, at which he and the people he lives with review a section of the Bible and talk spiritually, philosophically, and emotionally. To be honest, the first home-teaching I attended was actually quite pleasant, interesting, and informative (of both religion and personal philosophy).

It should be known that many of the people that I come into contact with through these meetings are very intelligent people. They are not pushy, especially when it comes to actually talking about faith (if you don't want to they will simply back off) and they are generally pleasant to be around. If it is of any significance, my view of religious people (at least this sect (?) of Christians) has changed significantly since my time spent with them.

Anyway, the most recent attendances of teachings have ironically skewed my faith in the opposite direction, towards atheism/ agnosticism. Any bit of faith I had in the existence of God has since been wiped clean. This is due to many questionable statements made by the speaker (some of which I will post on this forum, eventually), and the seemingly willful ignorance of the (intelligent) people around me, not questioning some of the silly things the guy said.

It seemed almost as if they had been brainwashed, and were incapable of disagreeing or questioning what the speaker said. I did not like that. Since that time, I have declined all further invitations to attending such events.

 

[The Introvert]

Then why do you believe it? (assuming that you do)

I don't.

Time doesn't exist, actually. It's just a way to measure the rate of change.

Then what I originally said is just as true as what you countered with -.-
Rate of change can be measured inversely, can it not?
*Puts on tinfoil hat*

Science = Philosophy + Many Assumptions + Cool Technology + Quantitative Evidence

Of which I have none.
(Read orange)

Considering that I'm a bit lost on what your idea even is, I'm going to say about nothing. I don't mean to be mean, yours was an honest attempt!

Gah, it makes sense in my head :/
*recedes into corner*

I'd assert that paradoxes arise simply due to a lack of understanding.

I misused the word paradox. I meant to say opposites? Or a fancier word for that.

To explain via an analogy (with an actual use for Newton's Law!):
Object A hits object B.
The speed at which object B moves is equal to the force that object A was moving (after calculating friction and all that good stuff)

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Since this Law governs the universe as we know it, wouldn't it work just the same on a microscopic (read: quantum) level just as it would on a macroscopic level?

Or is this the purpose of quantum mechanics? I am ignorant in this subject.

 

[Duxwing]

I don't.

Then why are we arguing?

Then what I originally said is just as true as what you countered with -.-
Rate of change can be measured inversely, can it not?
*Puts on tinfoil hat*

Why? The number of cycles of a caesium atom (the current definition of a second in SI) that have passed since things began to change is finite, and what do you mean, inversely? I'm confused, not accusative.

Of which I have none.
(Read orange)

Which makes our debate doubly difficult.

Gah, it makes sense in my head :/
*recedes into corner*

Oh dearie dearie dear, *comes over to The Introvert and gives him a hug* It's OK, shhhh, shhh, it's OK.

I misused the word paradox. I meant to say opposites? Or a fancier word for that.

To explain via an analogy (with an actual use for Newton's Law!):
Object A hits object B.
The speed at which object B moves is equal to the force that object A was moving (after calculating friction and all that good stuff)

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Since this Law governs the universe as we know it, wouldn't it work just the same on a microscopic (read: quantum) level just as it would on a macroscopic level?

Or is this the purpose of quantum mechanics? I am ignorant in this subject.

The purpose of quantum mechanics is to explain what Newtonian mechanics cannot, and no, Newton's Third Law only applies to macroscopic bodes. Photons, for example, are just waves that look like particles when you mess around with them.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

Then why are we arguing?

I didn't know we were, about the specific point that you asked about
I was just mentioning the point that the speaker made, because I disagreed with it (and subsequently gave my own answer to the question).

Why? The number of cycles of a caesium atom (the current definition of a second in SI) that have passed since things began to change is finite, and what do you mean, inversely? I'm confused, not accusative.

Well, as you said, time does not exist. It is simply a measurement of change.
Can't all measurements simply be inverted, and made negative? Can't you have an equilibrium reaction in which the reverse reaction proceeds as quickly as the forward reaction?
In this case, wouldn't time be reversible (ie: not linear)?

Which makes our debate doubly difficult.

Thus the decision to post in the Philosophy section

Oh dearie dearie dear, *comes over to The Introvert and gives him a hug* It's OK, shhhh, shhh, it's OK.

Oh, it's ok! It's just my natural defense mechanism; in no time I'll be up and about, spry, and going about my day as usual with ridiculous (but interesting) thoughts and ideas!

The purpose of quantum mechanics is to explain what Newtonian mechanics cannot, and no, Newton's Third Law only applies to macroscopic bodes. Photons, for example, are just waves that look like particles when you mess around with them.

Ah, I see.
*Courteous bow*
Thank you, sir Duxwing. My ignorance is slightly diminished.

 

[Duxwing]

I didn't know we were, about the specific point that you asked about
I was just mentioning the point that the speaker made, because I disagreed with it (and subsequently gave my own answer to the question).

That's an important tidbit of information! *chuckles*

Well, as you said, time does not exist. It is simply a measurement of change.
Can't all measurements simply be inverted, and made negative? Can't you have an equilibrium reaction in which the reverse reaction proceeds as quickly as the forward reaction?
In this case, wouldn't time be reversible (ie: not linear)?

Are you referring to the idea of counting backward? Sure, you can do that, but not infinitely far back (see my earlier mention of the impossibility of bilateral temporal infinity).

Thus the decision to post in the Philosophy section

Indeed.

Oh, it's ok! It's just my natural defense mechanism; in no time I'll be up and about, spry, and going about my day as usual with ridiculous (but interesting) thoughts and ideas!

*lets go of The Introvert* What do you have to defend against? I don't bite.

Ah, I see.
*Courteous bow*
Thank you, sir Duxwing. My ignorance is slightly diminished.

You're welcome, my Pokemon-themed friend.

-Duxwing

 

[Duxwing]

As for the reasons behind my attending the teaching:

My religious friend has been (apparently) trying to convert(?) me to Christianity for some time now. After many turned-down offers to attend teachings and studies, I eventually let in and decided to go to one with him.

Since that time, I have been invited to every single event.

I've attended home-teachings, at which he and the people he lives with review a section of the Bible and talk spiritually, philosophically, and emotionally. To be honest, the first home-teaching I attended was actually quite pleasant, interesting, and informative (of both religion and personal philosophy).

It should be known that many of the people that I come into contact with through these meetings are very intelligent people. They are not pushy, especially when it comes to actually talking about faith (if you don't want to they will simply back off) and they are generally pleasant to be around. If it is of any significance, my view of religious people (at least this sect (?) of Christians) has changed significantly since my time spent with them.

Anyway, the most recent attendances of teachings have ironically skewed my faith in the opposite direction, towards atheism/ agnosticism. Any bit of faith I had in the existence of God has since been wiped clean. This is due to many questionable statements made by the speaker (some of which I will post on this forum, eventually), and the seemingly willful ignorance of the (intelligent) people around me, not questioning some of the silly things the guy said.

It seemed almost as if they had been brainwashed, and were incapable of disagreeing or questioning what the speaker said. I did not like that. Since that time, I have declined all further invitations to attending such events.

*shudders* That's very, very creepy; *chuckles* Now I need a hug. My emotions aside, though, I agree with you entirely on the subject: there is no God.

-Duxwing

 

[phantom]

Religious point: The BBT implies that something (read: everything) spontaneously sprouted from nothing. This is highly illogical. Thus, it is more reasonable to believe in a creator (Christian God) than to believe that something came from nothing.

This makes no sense, which is why I'm responding, because it perturbs me when fellow theists fail to make sense. We need to distinguish between creation (i.e., the relationship between creator and the world, in which the creator makes it such that the world exists) and change within creation (e.g. phyical models and laws). The act of creation, making something (rather than nothing) exist, has nothing to do with the nature of the universe or even the existence of time. To claim that God created the universe is just to claim that God chose for a particular universe to exist rather than not exist.

The BBT is a description of change within the universe. It is not an account of creation. It is a model of the way the universe expanded and changed from an initial very small and dense state. It does not tell us why there is something rather than nothing. Physicists do not know what the universe was like in its initial state during the miniscule fraction of a second before the expansion began, but even if they did, this would not account for the existence of the laws and potentiality which eventually brought about our world.

Ironically, though, when big bang cosmology first hit the scene, theists hailed it as not quite evidence for but certianly consistent with a creator, because it implies that the universe has a beginning in time, which is consistent with traditional Christian belief. Again, the philosophical principle of creation does not demand that the universe be finite in any direction of time, but traditional Christian belief holds that the universe does have a beginning in time. I have no idea why some Christians nowadays are ignorant of this and find science to be somehow a threat to their faith.

Scientific point (either): It is nonsense to ask about what came "before" the big bang, because it is beyond the scope of current technology to answer.

Scientific point (or): The Big Bang is the beginning of space and time. It is the beginning of everything, therefore there literally could not be anything before.

It is true that we currently can't describe the very first state of the universe, but physicists are working on it. As I explained above it's not true that the big bang was the beginning of spacetime. However, it is nonsense to talk about what came before the universe, since time is a part of the universe. As creator God does not precede the universe temporally, but he precedes the universe logically and causally.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Religious point: The BBT implies that something (read: everything) spontaneously sprouted from nothing. This is highly illogical. Thus, it is more reasonable to believe in a creator (Christian God) than to believe that something came from nothing.

That's not what the BB says. At least, not literally. In Quantum Mechanics, "nothing" isn't the traditional lack any anything of any sort in any way. It includes the "quantum medium" or whatever they call it, which can spontaneously spawn matter and antimatter for no apparent reason. I'm not expert, but I know there's more to it than that. Essentially, it's a fallacy of equivocation.

Scientific point (either): It is nonsense to ask about what came "before" the big bang, because it is beyond the scope of current technology to answer.

Well, true, but much more the next one than this.

Scientific point (or): The Big Bang is the beginning of space and time. It is the beginning of everything, therefore there literally could not be anything before.

Yes, bingo.

The Introvert's point: Doesn't the existence of the universe, using the rules by which it is governed (Newton's 3rd law) necessitate that there must also be nothing? As in, because there is matter, must there not also be no matter? Maybe I am stretching what the rule says (as I'm pretty sure it only adheres to forces) but I feel like there is a possibility of a legitimate argument for this.

Newton's third law applies only to the physical universe. However, what you propose is a logical absurdity. Because there is something, it requires that there is not nothing. Just like lack of darkness requires that there's light.

Just as time as a relative is endless, so is the absence of time. So, since existence of matter is endless, so is absence of matter. For everything to exist, paradoxically, nothing must have existed.

Still, that doesn't follow.

 

[Architect]

Religious point: The BBT implies that something (read: everything) spontaneously sprouted from nothing. This is highly illogical. Thus, it is more reasonable to believe in a creator (Christian God) than to believe that something came from nothing.

This is a typical religious argument. The problem is that it isn't an argument, it's nonsense. Usually because speaker isn't a scientist and has no training in science, so they make these hand waving arguments about science.

Let's take a step back and not discuss the scientific thought around the BBT and what went before and put it this way, for the sake of argument it doesn't matter. What is at stake here is that science uses reason and evidence to find the truth, and religion uses the half baked ideas of people ignorant to using reason and evidence, such as a bronze age rabbi known as Jesus and the speaker at your event.

Science will only claim what it knows and not what it doesn't, and I'll tell you that what happened before the BBT is somewhat speculative. But we damn well know that it happened. On the other hand, this humanities Jonny claims to have it wrapped up - it is illogical that something came from nothing. Bullshit! How does he know? Where is his evidence for that? Something indeed come from nothing all the time, including that vacuous statement of his.

Discussion over. There is no point continuing the discussion because it's apples and oranges. On the one hand an enormous body of work from people who are actually trying to discover the truth, and on the other from a hot air buffoon who is trying to justify his ignorance.

* I'm actually not going to comment on what occurred before the BB, because I don't know. The strength of an arguer rests on what they know, and what they don't know and I won't pretend to be an expert in this aspect of cosmology.

 

[Cognisant]

Bullshit! How does he know? Where is his evidence for that? Something indeed come from nothing all the time, including that vacuous statement of his.

Actually information doesn't just happen, at very least not on a macro or micro level, so the vacuous statement of his is a direct result of the way his brain has figuratively wired itself in response to stimuli.

But yeah, I'm just being a smartass

 

[Duxwing]

This is a typical religious argument. The problem is that it isn't an argument, it's nonsense. Usually because speaker isn't a scientist and has no training in science, so they make these hand waving arguments about science.

Let's take a step back and not discuss the scientific thought around the BBT and what went before and put it this way, for the sake of argument it doesn't matter. What is at stake here is that science uses reason and evidence to find the truth, and religion uses the half baked ideas of people ignorant to using reason and evidence, such as a bronze age rabbi known as Jesus and the speaker at your event.

Science will only claim what it knows and not what it doesn't, and I'll tell you that what happened before the BBT is somewhat speculative. But we damn well know that it happened. On the other hand, this humanities Jonny claims to have it wrapped up - it is illogical that something came from nothing. Bullshit! How does he know? Where is his evidence for that? Something indeed come from nothing all the time, including that vacuous statement of his.

Discussion over. There is no point continuing the discussion because it's apples and oranges. On the one hand an enormous body of work from people who are actually trying to discover the truth, and on the other from a hot air buffoon who is trying to justify his ignorance.

* I'm actually not going to comment on what occurred before the BB, because I don't know. The strength of an arguer rests on what they know, and what they don't know and I won't pretend to be an expert in this aspect of cosmology.

Seconded.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

Are you referring to the idea of counting backward? Sure, you can do that, but not infinitely far back (see my earlier mention of the impossibility of bilateral temporal infinity).

I read it, but it didn't explain. Why is a bilateral temporal infinity impossible?

*lets go of The Introvert* What do you have to defend against? I don't bite.

But I might

 

[The Introvert]

That's not what the BB says. At least, not literally. In Quantum Mechanics, "nothing" isn't the traditional lack any anything of any sort in any way. It includes the "quantum medium" or whatever they call it, which can spontaneously spawn matter and antimatter for no apparent reason. I'm not expert, but I know there's more to it than that. Essentially, it's a fallacy of equivocation.

I need to start looking up some Quantum Theory (if it's not too high above my head).

Newton's third law applies only to the physical universe. However, what you propose is a logical absurdity. Because there is something, it requires that there is not nothing. Just like lack of darkness requires that there's light.

But there isn't 'darkness'. There's light. And there's absence of light, which we call darkness.

What I'm trying to say is that there is matter, and there is absence of matter. Having 'nothing' as a physical property is not only logically impossible (if it's nothing, then it cannot exist) but it also follows this same agenda; if there's nothing, it is the absence of something.

For something to exist, then, consequently, the absence of that something must exist, which would technically be nothing.

Just as I attempted to explain using a mathematical analogy and a sin curve, it holds the same principle.

 

[The Introvert]

On the other hand, this humanities Jonny claims to have it wrapped up - it is illogical that something came from nothing. Bullshit! How does he know? Where is his evidence for that? Something indeed come from nothing all the time, including that vacuous statement of his.

Well said, sir.

I guess their response would then be that God is the only one capable of creating something out of nothing.

At that point, however, they would be saying the exact opposite of what they just said. Foot in your mouth, eh?

Also at that point, you would be making assumptions of God, which I think would be not only impossible but also treasonous to the Word. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

 

[Duxwing]

I read it, but it didn't explain. Why is a bilateral temporal infinity impossible?


But I might

If you could count infinitely far back in time, then we would have never gotten to this moment because getting here would have literally taken eternity.

-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

I need to start looking up some Quantum Theory (if it's not too high above my head).

It's too above quantum physicist's heads!

But there isn't 'darkness'. There's light. And there's absence of light, which we call darkness.

Exactly my point. There isn't "nothing", there's things.

What I'm trying to say is that there is matter, and there is absence of matter. Having 'nothing' as a physical property is not only logically impossible (if it's nothing, then it cannot exist) but it also follows this same agenda; if there's nothing, it is the absence of something.

For something to exist, then, consequently, the absence of that something must exist, which would technically be nothing.

You're either saying something tremendously obvious in a convoluted way, or you're saying something crazy. I can't figure out which, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the first thing, where you're saying that things have identities and, thus, can be distinguished from things that are not it.

 

[SpaceYeti]

If you could count infinitely far back in time, then we would have never gotten to this moment because getting here would have literally taken eternity.

-Duxwing

I'm so, incredibly glad to hear someone else say this, for once!

 

[Architect]

Well said, sir.

I guess their response would then be that God is the only one capable of creating something out of nothing.

At that point, however, they would be saying the exact opposite of what they just said. Foot in your mouth, eh?

Also at that point, you would be making assumptions of God, which I think would be not only impossible but also treasonous to the Word. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

You're right that's what he'd say and again, so what? It's a circular argument. Meaningless, pure white noise. People think its so important to believe, when they don't even know what they believe in. They throw words around with nothing behind them.

Also notice a very important point. It used to be that the religionists denied the Big Bang. There certainly isn't anything remotely like it in the Bible, quite the contrary. But now science has rubbed their noses in it that yes the Big Bang certainly did occur, no ifs, ands or buts.

So now they've retreated to saying "Ah, but then God created the big bang". Whatever ... we'll have the Big Bang warmup nailed down in a few decades with experimental proof, they'll have to find something else to be wrong about.

 

[Felan]

I'm not sure antimatter and matter are the opposites in the sense of creation/uncreation, because when they combine they produce energy. The opposite of matter or energy interacting with matter or energy would produce nothing as I understand it.

Negative energy is opposite of energy in the sense that you are talking about opposites. Within zero point energy you'll have quantum fluctuations of negative energy and energy, but the sum of those fluctuations is the zero point. The negative energy is the opposite of energy. If sufficient quantities of negative energy could be harvested/stored then they would theoretically could be used in things like time travel and wormholes.

To my knowledge time is generally viewed as axis not simply a forward progression. There are definitely questions as to what going backward in time would mean.

Michio Kaku's book, "Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos", talks about the Big Bang Theory, string theory, m-theory, cosmological constant, negative energy, many worlds, and such in a compelling and comprehensible (to me at least) way. I think if you want to get a reasonable grasp of the subject without getting into crazy math I would recommend his book. If you'd like I could even see if it is lendable from my amazon library and lend it to you ... I think you can use the online viewer to read it.

One of the more interesting things Michio talks about in the book is that before the big bang (in m-theory) all the forces were equal in strength and nature but the big bang caused an unraveling of the forces into the four forces we know (electromagnetism, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, and gravitational). He also talks a little about how variations in the constants of the universe would would impact the universe, if one force were a bit stronger (i forget off hand which) then stars would burn through their fuel long before they could form bigger elements that are essential to life.

In the end I believe in God, but whenever there is conflict of which (religion or science) is right about something science wins. For me there are just too many humans between God and me to trust what all those humans say, I think it is a certainty that whatever God said to humanity has been garbled in the passage of time. I just can't fathom how if God exists, science could be in opposition to God.

 

[The Introvert]

If you could count infinitely far back in time, then we would have never gotten to this moment because getting here would have literally taken eternity.

-Duxwing

So this means that time is either linear or has an end at both sides?

 

[The Introvert]

Exactly my point. There isn't "nothing", there's things.

And nothing would just be the absence of said things.

Are you or are you not denying this?

You're either saying something tremendously obvious in a convoluted way, or you're saying something crazy. I can't figure out which, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the first thing, where you're saying that things have identities and, thus, can be distinguished from things that are not it.

It's the former.

You basically got it.

 

[Duxwing]

So this means that time is either linear or has an end at both sides?

Time is linear by definition, and it can either have an endpoint at its beginning and be infinitely long, or have two endpoints. Since time is a measure of change, and energy (and therefore change) is quantum, I suspect that the universe will eventually experience complete entropy: the end of change, and therefore the end of time. The result of this thought experiment, coupled with the need for time to have an beginning point, indicates that time as we define it will eventually end.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

I'm not sure antimatter and matter are the opposites in the sense of creation/uncreation, because when they combine they produce energy. The opposite of matter or energy interacting with matter or energy would produce nothing as I understand it.

So what does this mean?

That 1+1 = 0 (essentially) or am I missing the point/ convoluting what you said?

Within zero point energy you'll have quantum fluctuations of negative energy and energy, but the sum of those fluctuations is the zero point. The negative energy is the opposite of energy.

This is what I was attempting to explain with the sin curve.

As a side note, I did not know that negative energy was an actual thing...

If sufficient quantities of negative energy could be harvested/stored then they would theoretically could be used in things like time travel and wormholes.

Interesting... *puts back on tinfoil hat*

Michio Kaku's book, "Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos", talks about the Big Bang Theory, string theory, m-theory, cosmological constant, negative energy, many worlds, and such in a compelling and comprehensible (to me at least) way. I think if you want to get a reasonable grasp of the subject without getting into crazy math I would recommend his book. If you'd like I could even see if it is lendable from my amazon library and lend it to you ... I think you can use the online viewer to read it.

If it's not too much trouble for you, I would definitely be interested in that!

 

[The Introvert]

Time is linear by definition, and it can either have an endpoint at its beginning and be infinitely long, or have two endpoints. Since time is a measure of change, and energy (and therefore change) is quantum, I suspect that the universe will eventually experience complete entropy: the end of change, and therefore the end of time. The result of this thought experiment, coupled with the need for time to have an beginning point, indicates that time as we define it will eventually end.

-Duxwing

It would seem more logical to me to be that way.

Perhaps you can view it as sort of a stasis/ equilibrium?

Where at the end of time forward, it flips on itself and moves towards time backwards?

So in essence it is "infinite", but not by measurable means. If a reaction is in equilibrium, although the particles are still moving back and forth, is the reaction infinite as a whole?

If this is too ridiculous to answer please feel free to ignore me

 

[Duxwing]

It would seem more logical to me to be that way.

Perhaps you can view it as sort of a stasis/ equilibrium?

Where at the end of time forward, it flips on itself and moves towards time backwards?

So in essence it is "infinite", but not by measurable means. If a reaction is in equilibrium, although the particles are still moving back and forth, is the reaction infinite as a whole?

If this is too ridiculous to answer please feel free to ignore me

I think that you're just trying to justify calling it infinite at this point.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

I think that you're just trying to justify calling it infinite at this point.

-Duxwing

No, no to the contrary; I actually think that it is not.

I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to me that there is just a beginning, an end, and that's it. Everything else I have noticed says otherwise; that there is connectivity, that there is fluctuation, that there is equality.

I apologize if my antics come off as... trollish. It is sincerely not my intention.

I use the word infinite for lack of a better word.

 

[Duxwing]

No, no to the contrary; I actually think that it is not.

I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to me that there is just a beginning, an end, and that's it. Everything else I have noticed says otherwise; that there is connectivity, that there is fluctuation, that there is equality.

I apologize if my antics come off as... trollish. It is sincerely not my intention.

I use the word infinite for lack of a better word.

Don't worry about sounding like a troll; you don't. You just need to separate your intuition from what the definition of time is: the rate of change.

-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

And nothing would just be the absence of said things.

Are you or are you not denying this?

Well, nothing is the absence of anything, so there's not like a place or thing or event that exists within reality where you'd find nothing, because you'd have found a place or thing or event which is therefore a thing. There are places you'd find not a specific thing, but that's just other things, things that aren't the specific thing. "Nothing" doesn't exist as a real aspect of the universe, except in the QM sense where "nothing" isn't actually nothing.

It's the former.

You basically got it.

 

[Felan]

So what does this mean?

That 1+1 = 0 (essentially) or am I missing the point/ convoluting what you said?

Antimatter and matter is like 1+1 = 2, matter/energy is conserved in an antimatter/matter reaction.

Energy and negative energy is like 1 - 1 = 0, matter/energy is still conserved.

As a side note, I did not know that negative energy was an actual thing...

Negative energy hasn't been directly observed, there isn't a glowing substance you can suspend in a container and see. Well it might be possible to see it but we haven't had anything but tiny quantities. It's existence is verified in both theory and experiments (Casimir effect).

Interesting... *puts back on tinfoil hat*

LOL puny human tinfoil hats actually make easier to scan your brain and control you!

Theoretically being able to do something doesn't mean that it can actually be done. Theoretically if time travel were possible you could only go to the point in time that the worm hole (allowing the time travel) was first created. Unless there is a naturally occurring worm hole somewhere or one created by another more advanced civilization then we'll have to wait till we create one.

There is a problem with the temporal wormhole (if such is possible) that basically mandates many world interpretation (MWI). Essentially if light were to enter a wormhole and then re-enter the wormhole again and again it would build in intensity and because an ever increasing beam of energy. MWI avoids this issue by saying that every time light (or anything else) enters the wormhole a different universe is split off of the one in the past. The reason this is possible is because amount of matter/energy needed for a new universe could theoretically be zero or nearly so with things like negative energy. I don't recall getting a clear understanding of where all the negative energy is in the universe to balance out the energy/matter.

If it's not too much trouble for you, I would definitely be interested in that!

Send me a pm with your email and let me know once you've set up an account on Amazon with that email (if you don't already have an account).