Thread: Why is there existence instead of nothing?

When you say, "can something create itself", you are assuming that there was a beginning.

" At the quantum level nothing of the material world is left intact. It is strange enough to hold up your hand and realize that it is actually, at a deeper level, invisible vibrations taking place in a void. Even at the atomic level all objects are revealed as mostly empty space. On its own scale, the distance between a whirling electron and the nucleas it revolves around is wider than the distance between the earth and the sun. But you could never capture that electron anyway, since it too breaks down into energy vibrations that wink in and out of existence millions of times per second. Therefore the whole universe is a quantum mirage....." ~ Deepak Chopra

.... to me this about sums it up.... and if you subscribe to the belief that all things are made of the same basic fundamental particles, then within each existence, there is emptiness... they go hand in hand, emptiness and form, light and darkness, the yin and the yan.......there could never be just one or the other......

and about things creating themselves... I agree with bradybaker that this means there is a beginning.... It's kind of like water..... we are the points from which all things flow, yet we are the flow..... you know what I mean?

"Nothing" indeed is something, unless you are referring to space, which gives the illusion of nothing. How can we really know what nothing is. How do we know we're not already in nothing, but see it as something? These are pointless questions, really, lol.

They're just words, man. Words do nothing more than solidify certain thoughts out of the infinite other thoughts. We do not know as much as we think...

When I say, "nothing," I am not merely refering to space. Space is a form of existence. If it were nothing, there wouldn't be anything separating matter from other matter. There would be no distance between Earth and the moon or the particles of them from each other. I am asking why anything at all exists, even words. If "nothing" is a form of existence, then why does even it exist? What is even more bizarre is that an infinite number of things exist. If it is all a mirage, why does the mirage exist? If it is all in the mind, why does the mind exist? It is a difficult question to answer and a difficult question to even ask. I don't suggest in any way that I know the answer. I am just asking an open ended question to see what kind of responses I might get. I've gotten some interesting responses so far. I really liked Chopra's point.

When I ask if something can create itself, I am not suggesting a "beginning." That term is limited to the fourth dimension, which is only one aspect of existence. By "create" I mean "be the source/cause of" (not necessarily in a time sequence).

Can something create itself?[/b]

You mean can something come from nothing? We're here, so the answer must be yes, or at least "kinda". 0 = 1 + -1. On the other hand I don't think something can create itself, because it can't create itself (or do anything else) before it exists. Then again, there are theories about particles or objects that don't have a start or end, they're stuck in some kind of time loop and seem to have come from nowhere. I think I remember an example that went something like this:
1. Someone gives you a watch.
2. You go back in time and give the watch back to that person so they're able to give it to you in the first place.
and then of course the cycle repeats forever. Where did the watch come from? What created it? I don't see how such a time loop could possibly form, but who knows, the entire universe might be something similar.

Originally posted by Stevehattan

Can something create itself?

You mean can something come from nothing? We're here, so the answer must be yes, or at least \"kinda\". 0 = 1 + -1. On the other hand I don't think something can create itself, because it can't create itself (or do anything else) before it exists. Then again, there are theories about particles or objects that don't have a start or end, they're stuck in some kind of time loop and seem to have come from nowhere. I think I remember an example that went something like this:
1. Someone gives you a watch.
2. You go back in time and give the watch back to that person so they're able to give it to you in the first place.
and then of course the cycle repeats forever. Where did the watch come from? What created it? I don't see how such a time loop could possibly form, but who knows, the entire universe might be something similar.[/b]

That would definitely be a situation with no beginning, but it would still have to have a cause. It seems that something would have to be the source of the reality of that time loop. If circumstances could exist without causes, random bizarrities would happen all the time. Fish would spontaneously jump out of walls, or houses would suddenly levitate and start raining squirrels. The universe would lack order and be full of never ending absurdity. On the other hand, any cause of existence itself would be part of existence, and something causing itself would involve the same absurd situation as lacking cause, so that's also impossible. That makes sense to me so far, but the conclusion that follows is that existence is impossible, but here it is. This is a paradox. What is the deal?

Strangely enough, its fully possible for a fish to spontaneously to jump out of a wall, just as it is possible for you to walk right through a wall (given enough attempts of course, if you walked into a wall once a second for 14 billion years you still probably wouldn't have made it through). It's also possible for a horse, or a boat or a universe to spontaneously pop into existence. Cool stuff eh?

Originally posted by Universal Mind
When I say, \"nothing,\" I am not merely refering to space. Space is a form of existence. If it were nothing, there wouldn't be anything separating matter from other matter. There would be no distance between Earth and the moon or the particles of them from each other. I am asking why anything at all exists, even words. If \"nothing\" is a form of existence, then why does even it exist? What is even more bizarre is that an infinite number of things exist. If it is all a mirage, why does the mirage exist? If it is all in the mind, why does the mind exist? It is a difficult question to answer and a difficult question to even ask. I don't suggest in any way that I know the answer. I am just asking an open ended question to see what kind of responses I might get. I've gotten some interesting responses so far. I really liked Chopra's point.

When I ask if something can create itself, I am not suggesting a \"beginning.\" That term is limited to the fourth dimension, which is only one aspect of existence. By \"create\" I mean \"be the source/cause of\" (not necessarily in a time sequence).

The question you are really asking is: "Why do I exist?"

Originally posted by bradybaker
Strangely enough, its fully possible for a fish to spontaneously to jump out of a wall, just as it is possible for you to walk right through a wall (given enough attempts of course, if you walked into a wall once a second for 14 billion years you still probably wouldn't have made it through). It's also possible for a horse, or a boat or a universe to spontaneously pop into existence. Cool stuff eh?

These things sure could happen, granted time is moving and there are plenty of particles flying around. But, and I think this is what Universal mind was getting at, could this happen in a place where there is no time or matter? There has to be a trigger of some sort to start the universe on its path to existance. IF the universe in fact was able to pop out of nothingness by means of some kind of time loop, why don't we see things popping up all the time all over the place? I was hoping this post would be full of answers instead of more questions, but I don't got none.

I think that when you start to question the origin of the universe and creation is when the topic starts to move off of scientific things like the behavior of particles and empty space and form.... I think this is where the question of religion or faith, or lack thereof comes into play.........

It's interesting actually not but two paragraphs down from the quote I posted earlier was this...

"Genesis is now and always has been. Who is behind this never ending creation? Whose power of mind or vision is capable of taking the universe away and putting it back again in a fraction of a second?"

..... The rest of the book really is his answer so I can't quote it for you..... but it is called "How to Know God, A Soul's Journey into the Mystery of Mysteries" By Deepak Chopra.. a very amazing writer and genius in spirituality....... the book is not referring to the Christian God.... or any God in particular ... so don't let the title distract you..... but check it out ...

Originally posted by SteveHatton+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveHatton)</div>

could this happen in a place where there is no time or matter?[/b]

Yes.

<!--QuoteBegin-SteveHatton
why don't we see things popping up all the time all over the place?

Because the chances of it happening are so incredibly miniscule that it's almost impossible to concieve a number that small. The Universe has been around a mere 13.7 billion years, give or take 1%, that is literally less than a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things. And walls for fish to jump out of have only existed for a few million years.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the universe had all of eternity to pop into existence, so on an infinite time scale its inevitable for it to happen.

I don't understand how uncaused events could be possible. The chances of a fish spontaneously jumping out of a wall when there was no fish in the wall and the fish would have suffocated even if it had been may be incredibly miniscule if it were possible, but I don't see how it is even possible, and I have never come across anything that even fits into the category of such sponataneity. I have come across zillions of events in my 33 years, but nothing like that. I can't even explain how it could ever be the case. Existence as I have known it has always involved only things that fit into cause/effect chains. The probability of the fish scenario would be small, but there are an infinite number of such hypotheticals, so it seems that such things would be happening constantly. If cause is not necessary, what would put a cap on the happenings of uncaused events?

Quantum physics shows us that objects can appear out of nothing and then disappear back into nothing. In empty space, so called "virtual particles" are continuously appearing and disappearing. This is a real and measurable process. They are called virtual particles because they almost always appear with their anti-matter counterpart and almost instantaneously annihilate each other.

But you're still not understanding how improbable it is for a fish to spontaneously appear. But given enough time, I assure you that a fish would eventually jump out of the wall.

It's admittedly a very strange process, probably not fully understood by even the most prominent astro-physisists, but it is real, and it does happen.

Edit: If you want to see a fish travel through a wall though I suggest that you start chucking fishes. Eventually the fish will not hit the wall, but spontaneously travel through it. It's called quantum tunneling.

Originally posted by bradybaker

I guess what I'm getting at is that the universe had all of eternity to pop into existence, so on an infinite time scale its inevitable for it to happen.

You're assuming time always existed, even before anything else. Even if there was a "time" when only time existed, I don't see how the passing of an eternal amount of time alone could trigger a universe to form, because every instant would be identical to the previous and next instants (since there would be no matter, energy, space or anything moving around). Therefore, if the existance of time were ever to trigger the existance of matter and energy, they would both spring into existance in the same instant, so it's hard to tell which caused which to form (if either is responsible for the other's existance at all).

Universal Mind, causality is unavoidable, but there are possible ways to get around ordinary cause and effect events. First off, if time is going backwards (or sometimes even forwards, as with the "borrowed" virtual particles described by bradybaker), events can come before causes as long as the cause is fulfilled. If time isn't moving, or doesn't exist yet, it must be possible that a cause and effect might happen simultaniously, creating a time loop that would lead to existance.

wow, im very interested into all this kinda stuff, despite my lack of any knowledge about it lol

I'm just wondering (so that i can keep up) what the fish example means? Are you saying that if you kept on say chucking fishes at a wall, eventually one would go through it because there are infinite chances of it happening? hmmm

Originally posted by phallam
Are you saying that if you kept on say chucking fishes at a wall, eventually one would go through it because there are infinite chances of it happening? hmmm

That could happen because there are spaces between the atoms in all objects that are big enough for other atoms to squeeze through without being blocked. If you threw a fish at the wall and the atoms that make up the fish all passed through the spaces between the atoms of the wall, and the atoms of the wall between the spaces of the fish, the fish would go clean through. But, the chance it so small that you could keep throwing a fish at a wall for trillions of years and it probably wouldn't pass through (it would more likely get stuck in the middle somewhere), but the smaller the object, the more likely to pass through completely. If you threw only a single atom at a wall, it wouldn't take too long for it to go straight through.

Also, it's possible for a fish to just spontaniously appear, seemingly out of thin air. If the right atoms just happened to be floating around in a certain spot and came together in the right way, they could make a fish (it's kind of complicated so I'll leave it at that).

I've often contemplated this thinking about god as an entity. If god made the universe from nothing than who made god from nothing. How could anything come from nothing, before there were any quantum reactions at all when nothing existed not even space. How could anything come from nothing. Absoluetely nothing, no color no space no particles no quantum theory. There is no answer, it's beyond our understanding I believe. It just doesn't work. How could anything come from absoluetly nothing

Originally posted by SteveHatton+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveHatton)</div>

That could happen because there are spaces between the atoms in all objects that are big enough for other atoms to squeeze through without being blocked.[/b]

Think much smaller than atoms.

Originally posted by SteveHatton+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveHatton)</div>

If the right atoms just happened to be floating around in a certain spot and came together in the right way, they could make a fish[/b]

Not quite, the right subatomic particles would have to pop out of non-existence, then combine to form protons, neutrons and electrons, then for atoms, then form in the proper pattern to produce what we would call a fish. Also, chances are that it would be created along with its anti-matter fist counter part and would be annihilated almost instanteneously.

<!--QuoteBegin-phallam@
Are you saying that if you kept on say chucking fishes at a wall, eventually one would go through it because there are infinite chances of it happening

Not quite, the chancing of it happening are incredibly close to zero, not infinity. But over a long enough time line, every event that is possible does happen at some point.

<!--QuoteBegin-SteveHatton
Therefore, if the existance of time were ever to trigger the existance of matter and energy, they would both spring into existance in the same instant, so it's hard to tell which caused which to form

Do you know what E=mc^2 means? It means that matter and energy are the same thing.

creating a time loop that would lead to existance.[/b]

What is all this time loop crap? Time loops have nothing to do with things popping into existence.

You're assuming time always existed[/b]

And you're assuming that a matterless, energyless void existed before the universe.

Do you know what E=mc^2 means? It means that matter and energy are the same thing.[/b]

I'm well aware of that, and I think my usage of the word \"and\" confused you in my post. What I was saying was that the existance of time (the fourth dimension) is meaningless if the 3 known spatial dimensions aren't present, and matter/energy/space has to exist wherever those 3 dimensions are present. Time without the other 3 dimensions would have nothing to occupy, and there would be nothing to make each instant any different from the next, so it wouldn't really exist; same goes for the fact that a 3D object that only \"exists\" for a zero-length period of time never physically existed at all. So, matter/energy/space wouldn't have had to eventually spring into being just because an infinite amount of time was passing (I don't see how it could have been passing anyway), so I'm not quite sure what you meant by that original comment.

And you're assuming that a matterless, energyless void existed before the universe.[/b]

Yes, because the topic of this thread is about trying to answer the question of how a universe could form from such a 0-dimensional void. Naturally if we were able to travel further back in time than the very first instant when existance came into being, if there even is a single instant that can be rightfully called the first (and it could be a lot further back than our big bang), we would find complete, 0 dimensional nothingness. But, trying to go back in time further than the first instant would be like trying to go south of the south pole, as someone once said. Also, when I say time loop, it's just a way to describe something that doesn't have a definate start or end point according to time.

Originally posted by Stevehattan

Universal Mind, causality is unavoidable, but there are possible ways to get around ordinary cause and effect events. First off, if time is going backwards (or sometimes even forwards, as with the \"borrowed\" virtual particles described by bradybaker), events can come before causes as long as the cause is fulfilled. If time isn't moving, or doesn't exist yet, it must be possible that a cause and effect might happen simultaniously, creating a time loop that would lead to existance.

WOES!!! That's fascinating! I'll ponder on that for a while. But what causes cause and effect to happen simultaneously? It looks like no matter how good an answer is, the response can ALWAYS be, "Then what causes that?" I was thinking about this really hard last night, and I came to the conclusion that causes and causation are forms of existence, so existence precedes causes and causation. Therefore, existence does not need a cause. The existence of existence is the one thing that absolutely must "be." But what causes that to be the case? I think it might have something to do with the fact that no matter how things "are," the given fact is that they "are." If nothing "is," then that is how it "is." "Is" is unavoidable, no matter how things "are." No matter what the state of things, the state of things exists. If there were no state of things (hypothetically, not realistically), then that would be the state of things, so the state of things exists automatically. The state of things is therefore part of existence, so there must be existence. What causes this? It doesn't have to have a cause. It is automatic. So why aren't bizarre events constantly happening without cause? Excuse me while I go get fitted for a straight jacket. Have a good weekend.

Originally posted by SteveHatton+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveHatton)</div>

What I was saying was that the existance of time (the fourth dimension) is meaningless if the 3 known spatial dimensions aren't present[/b]

Note for interested readers: String theory suggests that there are actually 10 spatial dimensions, making for 11 overall. (SteveHatton's point still holds though.)

Originally posted by SteveHatton@
Naturally if we were able to travel further back in time than the very first instant when existance came into being, if there even is a single instant that can be rightfully called the first (and it could be a lot further back than our big bang), we would find complete, 0 dimensional nothingness.

Whoa there, that is a HUGE assumption.

<!--QuoteBegin-SteveHatton
Yes, because the topic of this thread is about trying to answer the question of how a universe could form from such a 0-dimensional void.

I don't want to play word games here, but the topic of the thread was a much more open-ended question than that.

Why is there existence instead of nothing?[/b]

Why not?

Originally posted by Universal Mind
Why does existence exist?

Wouldn't any cause of existence be a form of existence? Can something create itself?

wow, what a coincedence. This Science magazine has smething about the Big Bang and it said something about how did we come to be or something similar to your question. I'll read through it and try and find out for you

~Haz

Whoa there, that is a HUGE assumption. [/b]

I'm not claiming to be right, but I think it's unavoidable when assuming time had a beginning. Of course, there are many theories of extra dimensions, along with nearly infinite possibilities that haven't even been thought of yet that could explain existance, but when temporarily ruling out those possibilities, I figure that you need a timelike dimension for existance of any sort. So: If there was a true first instant in time, then "before" that instant, time wouldn't exist. Without a dimension of time, spatial dimensions wouldn't hold up and you'd find 0-dimesnional nothingness.

There might easily have not been a definate beginning though. Time might bend/loop back on itself somehow so that in a way, the universe would have existed for an infinite amount of time, which wouldn't be possible if there was a first instant. Trying to find the beginning of time might be like an early explorer trying to find the edge of what he thinks is a flat earth. Just throwing ideas out there....