Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 299 posts

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#261

Post by nf05papsjfVbc »

philipov wrote: post #260
tuesdayrain wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a layman when it comes to physics, I've always had the impression that the nature of existence must be tautological. If the logic doesn't form a circle, then any attempt to explain the cause and effect sequence that resulted in our universe can always be met with a "well why did the first step occur"?

Logic is a human invention. The universe doesn't owe you the ability to explain the entire chain of cause and effect. Not being able to prove your axioms is what differentiates science from religion.

By definition axioms can't be proven but they are assumptions which we take for granted upon which we build science. However, in science, the axioms are such that they can be observed and discarded if we ever find them to be false. This is where it differs from religion.

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#262

Post by philipov »

nf05papsjfVbc wrote: post #261
philipov wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logic is a human invention. The universe doesn't owe you the ability to explain the entire chain of cause and effect. Not being able to prove your axioms is what differentiates science from religion.

By definition axioms can't be proven but they are assumptions which we take for granted upon which we build science. However, in science, the axioms are such that they can be observed and discarded if we ever find them to be false. This is where it differs from religion.

I think that using logical fallacies to prove your own assumptions likewise discards observation in favor of a totalitarian explanation of everything, which amounts to a religious belief. A key aspect of science is accepting that our understanding is limited and contingent, whereas religion tends to use faith to prove itself.

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#263

Post by naringas »

senectus1 wrote: post #240
naringas wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pure nothingness has no potential for creation. I disagree, pure nothingness has the largest potential for creation because by virtue of not being there (nor anywhere) it doesn't prevent anything at all from creating itself. if this sounds strange is because the concept of nothingness is strange. rather than asking why is there nothing rather than something, I marvel at how we can conceptualize 'nothingness' in suc…

the more i think about this the more wrong i think you are. You're assuming that "nothingness" isn't an impediment to creation of something... it may very well be the ultimate barrier to something being created. We'll probably never know, but at the end of the day until we can devise a way to define and measure "nothingness" we cant setup any experiments (thought or otherwise) to develop theories from/about it.

but nothingness in fact isn't an impediment to creation because nothingness just isn't. it's not an impediment nor a boon nor anything at all.

and how can you concieve of a way to measure "nothingness" when by definition you would be trying to measure that which isn't there to be measured?

have you ever seen zero of anything? how would you measure that?

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#264

Post by naringas »

brankoB wrote: post #251
naringas wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pure nothingness has no potential for creation. I disagree, pure nothingness has the largest potential for creation because by virtue of not being there (nor anywhere) it doesn't prevent anything at all from creating itself. if this sounds strange is because the concept of nothingness is strange. rather than asking why is there nothing rather than something, I marvel at how we can conceptualize 'nothingness' in suc…

The act of creation requires there to be something there beforehand. You can't create something from nothing, it doesn't make any sense.

I don't understand why would creation require something beforehand, that seems to be transformation or transmutation of some sort.

in any case, nothingness already makes no sense on its own

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#265

Post by mensetmanusman »

philipov wrote: post #260
tuesdayrain wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a layman when it comes to physics, I've always had the impression that the nature of existence must be tautological. If the logic doesn't form a circle, then any attempt to explain the cause and effect sequence that resulted in our universe can always be met with a "well why did the first step occur"?

Logic is a human invention. The universe doesn't owe you the ability to explain the entire chain of cause and effect. Not being able to prove your axioms is what differentiates science from religion.

Science doesn’t prove axioms... Gödel already parsed this problem :)

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#266

Post by brankoB »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #253
brankoB wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Pure nothingness" would be the empty set, not a set with something in it.

Yes, that's their point. Pure nothingness, the empty set, has the potential to create the set containing the empty set, and then the set containing that, sets containing combinations, etc etc.

How does the empty set "create" the set containing the empty set?

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#267

Post by mensetmanusman »

JudgeWapner wrote: post #221
golover721 wrote: post #184

For me the hardest idea to grasp is the concept of “nothing”. It seems to me that is something the human brain cannot possibly comprehend. There is always something as far as our senses are concerned. I guess that’s why the idea of nothingness after we die so such a hard notion to comprehend.

I can momentarily stun myself if I concentrate long enough on the idea of "what if there was just nothing? No universe, no cosmos, no light, no time, no matter. Just nothing." Think about that for a minute or two.

Things would surely be simpler :) also, that is what you will experience after death according to many here...

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#268

Post by mensetmanusman »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #40
SomeOldThrow wrote: post #3

What does it even mean to ask “what happened before time”? The question seems nonsensical to me.

It's nonsensical to wonder what happened in our universe before it existed, but if our universe has an external superuniverse, it's not illogical to wonder what happened there that caused our universe to exist.

It's nonsensical to some, but not to others :) never forget the incredible capability of consciousness.

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#269

Post by Dylan16807 »

brankoB wrote: post #266
Dylan16807 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's their point. Pure nothingness, the empty set, has the potential to create the set containing the empty set, and then the set containing that, sets containing combinations, etc etc.

How does the empty set "create" the set containing the empty set?

By being the contents that make that set exist.

Re: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

#270

Post by jerf »

abtinf wrote: post #223
jerf wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an explanation, that's just a relabeling, moving the questions people have from the label "the universe" to the label "the observable universe", but neither answering them, nor making them any less relevant.

The universe is everything. By definition, there can be no evidence for anything outside, before, or after it. Any such evidence would be in the universe. There are no valid questions about it, nor valid answers. Any claims about something outside the universe are neither true nor false—they are completely arbitrary. They have the same intellectual status as God.

I addressed what you said, you just blindly re-iterated your point without any engagement with mine at all.

To spell it out even more clearly, what if "the universe" is larger than the observable universe? In that case, it would still be reasonable to ask where did the observable universe come from? For instance, if we are a simulation, you would place the simulator in "the universe", which as a definition is a fine place to put such a simulator. But it means that questions about our observable universe would then be fair game.

You're trying to shut down thought by simply redefining terms, but even by your own definitions, it doesn't work. It's not a sophisticated or well-thought out position, it's just "I give up entirely, and so should everybody else" dressed up in pretty clothes that are trying to look cool. You're welcome to give up in that way, most people do by default after all, but you've got no grounds to insist that others also give up.

Post reply on HN