OK, first off, 10-15% is a myth. Second, I'm afraid it's your question, about nothingness producing something, that is childish. Cogito was absolutely right in his explanation. The concept of "nothingness" doesn't even make sense.
I don't think calling any theory 'childish' is an acceptable way to discuss such topics. The truth is that we know that our universe is finite and had a cause. We know that something cannot come from nothing, so there must be something that has always been. I believe that to be God, others believe it to be another dimension, a collapsing/exploding universe model, etc...
Nothing. The lack of something. The lack of time and space. A status which is guaranteed to make your head spin if you think about it too long.
@mammamaia: Haha, I love how you called the entire physics community 'childish'. I dare not imagine what you would make of quantum mechanics But seriously, I think we need to keep in mind that we don't know everything, and that perhaps our lack of knowledge and training in a certain field can make well accepted theories sound ridiculous. It doesn't make them so, though.
Understanding a concept has nothing to do with relevance. It's relevant to a discussion on the origins of the universe to understand the concept of t=-1, which is contradictory because there was no time before. There was... nothing. If you would like to engage in this conversation, perhaps be polite enough to fully explain your thoughts instead of dropping breadcrumbs for the rest of us to follow.
Sorry, it's not my intention be rude. Apologies if anything I said was. 1. We have no idea what there was at t-1. 2. But, surely an infinitely dense point does not constitute nothing. 3. From your very definition of nothing, you can never say it existed, if it is timeless, mass-less, and dimensionless. It's a moot point.
If you re-read my previous posts, you will find that I am in agreement. 1. Something cannot come from nothing. 2. There is something. 3. Therefore, there can never exist a time when there was nothing. But following that argument: 1. Everything that exists has a cause. (See above.) 2. The Universe exists. 3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause. So, I think we both agree that the Universe started, and that there was something that caused the Universe.
Disagree. Nothing cannot exist by its very definition, not simply because there is "something." Therefore, I have no reason to think that everything which exists must have a cause. I agree, our universe has a cause. As for what came before it, whether that needs a cause or not, I cannot say.
A definition cannot cause a state to be false. If I say a box is 'empty', I am simply referring to the negative status of objects within the box. Emptiness is not a physical trait. It is a word given to a state. I think you actually do agree with the argument, but your kind of twisting the definitions in a weird way.
@JJ_Maxx: Actually, your conclusions aren't necessarily correct, even though you correctly follow deductive argument format. The problem you have is with your premises, which aren't verifiable truths but assumptions which can be philosophically debated but can't yet be proven beyond any doubt.
To me this points back to the idea of infinity within the finite and finite within the infinity. If you haven't seen Nassim Haramein's "Black Whole" I suggest you watch it. I truly find all of this very fascinating. It's this type of thing that locks me into hours of web searching and reading, perpetuating the notion of my "internet addiction". I am anxious to jump into this discussion with questions and ideas of my own, but I fear I don't have time to sustain that kind of conversation at this point. I've learned a lot about this and everything I've learned has raised more questions that need answers. It's just important to remember that all I have at this point are theories based on other peoples work and my own ability to string puzzle pieces together. Ultimately I could talk for hours (and have) on what I think is going on, but in the end, I don't truly know anything beyond what I've experienced. Still if science is supporting certain things I've noticed, thought, or experienced, I can't discredit it myself. I'm willing to bet there was a 4D star that collapsed to create OUR physical 3D experience. I don't know how our universe was created. I'm only certain that it involved arithematic, geometry, harmonics, and sound (frequency/energy/vibration).
Well, that is the definition of an argument. The premises are sound, in that they fit into what we currently know. As far as truth, you have two options, either you accept the premise or you reject it. If you reject that something cannot come from nothing, than you believe that something can come from nothing, and then you'd have to explain why something does pop into existence all the time, everywhere. If nothing is subjective in when it creates something, then it is by definition not 'nothing', it's something.
On the topic of density, the density is assumed to be infinite at the center for mathematical simplicity, right? Realistically, I'm not sure something can have infinite density. I may be wrong however.
I'm not sure about the mathematics of it, but the equation is that density = mass/volume. Since the mass of a singularity is finite, while the volume is thought to be infinite, therefore the density must also be infinite. But seeing how any information about a singularity cannot escape from the event horizon, we can only postulate.
Right you are. It was an error in my notation. That will teach me to try to do two things at once. It should read as follows: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The Universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause. Thanks for pointing that out.
Yeah, I think that's a bit better. But it makes certain assumptions that aren't provable: 1) that the universe began to exist rather than has always existed; and/or 2) god has always existed rather than began to exist. This is where I think discussions of this nature necessarily break down and you fall back on either faith or non-faith. Neither logic nor science can result in a provably truth on these matters.
I wish you guys would quit arguing about my wallet and it's presumed 'emptiness,' and the infinite density of my head. It's just rude.
@JJ_Maxx: That's certainly true. But I can equally say 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. We don't know everything. 3. Therefore we don't know whether everything that begins has a cause. It is when the same premise yields two opposite conclusions that I can't view as reliable argument. Same is with the premise dealing with the existence of God. It's logically unprovable for the same reason.
I have to say this conversation was a lot more interesting before people started trying to inbred logic into a topic that our minds can't really grasp the concept of just yet. It's almost as if the idea that the true dynamics of a black hole, which might change everything we ever thought about physics, doesn't exist. Should we not forget that for only a fraction of our time on this planet, that we only began to think the Earth is round and not flat? It's been only a little over 40 years since man first landed on the moon. Yet here some are trying to explain black holes with the physics of Earth and explain the beginning of the universe with logic? What if the beginning of the universe was an accident? What if humans were an experiment by aliens to create a race of workers? What if humans were created only for spare body parts for aliens? What if we were actually the rejects of an alien experiment and they just didn't have the heart to kill us so they sent us off to Earth to live instead? What if Earth and humans were all created by the highly unlikely chance that lightening struck water on the planet and reanimated a once dormant species from a planet from another dimension that was brought here through the process we believe to be the Big Bang Theory? What if we were created by God? As someone else stated, anything is possible, because as humans we are not omnipotent and can not define the true realm of what is possible and what is impossible.
As for 1.) Are you saying you feel that the universe did not begin to exist? I think you will find that the scientific community is in agreement that the 'Steady State' theory is incorrect. Its been shown that the universe is expanding and that, if you rewind the tape, everything was in one spot about 15 billion years ago. Hence the big bang and the beginning of our Universe. As for 2.) The argument makes no mention of God, only whether an outside force caused the Universe to begin. You may make that implication, but the argument certainly does not. This is a fallacious argument. We don't know everything, true, but we also do know a great many things therefore, your conclusion is invalid because you haven't proven that your first premise falls into the 'things we don't' know category. ...and again, I find it interesting that som many people are adding God into an argument that doesn't mention or even require God.
That doesn't really demonstrate that the universe has an origin, in that it is indistinguishable from an oscillating universe that has always existed. You might technically argue that each oscillation is a new universe, and so ours still has a beginning, but the system as a whole could always have been in place and there is no way we could distinguish it from a single Big Bang event that marked the beginning of things.
