Something from Nothing

When you take a serious look at our universe and surroundings as being totally intangible, that nothing is really real, and consider thought as the universal force that created everything known to exist (all intangible) where nothing once was, then the creation of everything from nothing starts to make sense.

The Big Bang theorists believe that All the stars and planets of All the galaxies in outer space exploded out from a tiny pinprick in the fabric of time and space.

So, maybe "the equation for everything" that string theorists are searching for, when they discover it, will be as simple as this one I thought of:

Together "Light and Knowledge" are inanimate, intangible, and inseparable: Together they birthed our universe in the first explosive spark of thought!

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~Albert Einstein

You're going to have a hard time convincing the scientists of your assumption "that nothing is really real". The empirical sciences operate on a realist ontology: the universe exists quite independently of human thought or creative agency.

Then they may never discover the origins of our universe. I think you must have an open mind when trying to solve the most complex question known to humankind. Nothing (no pun intended) should not be left off the table. I think most people naturally want to believe tangible things are truly tangible. We All trust that a hand full of Earth in our hand, is a hand full of Earth in our hand. Yet that doesn’t mean it’s real. It just means we beLIEve it’s real.

>3 William_Bailey:: Such epistemological skepticism leads quickly to the creationist with his head in the sand: I BELIEVE God created the world 5000 years ago, so all of the evidence of science means nothing. I'm sorry, but that simply isn't acceptable. You can believe what you want; that doesn't change the reality of a 14-million year old universe and the processes of biological evolution.

Edited to explain that, while a realist, I am not a strict materialist: as a theologian, I actually spend significant amounts of time thinking about creation ex nihilo and how to understand the harmonies between scientific and faith evidence. But neither nihilism nor extreme skepticism are, in my estimation, useful routes to that synthesis. Any attempt to understand the totality of creation must acknowledge tangible reality.

First, I believe firmly in intelligent design. But I also believe that intelligent design could have never happened had not some form of random chance taken place in the first place. A "singularity" if you will for lack of a better word. So what if that singularity was the birth of thought? And what if the entire tangible universe was the product of thought? Yes we can hold Earth in our hands, we trust it’s real, but maybe that’s as real as Earth or anything else can ever be.

#1

"The Big Bang theorists believe that All the stars and planets of All the galaxies in outer space exploded out from a tiny pinprick in the fabric of time and space."

This isn't actually correct, is it? You are assuming prior existence of time and space, whereas the Big Bang is the event wherein time and space originated (at least the time and space perceptible by us).

You might be interested in A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

You're right. I know that. I should have worded it differently. I was just trying to explain, in simple terms, the idea of everything exploding out of a teeny tiny spot.

I realize it may be a little late to board this discussion, but I'm interested to learn how you think that treating thought as the original creative force makes the Big Bag any more intelligible. You asserted that it does, but I don't see where you defended that claim. Assuming that thought is indeed the creative force that originated the universe, how do you mean to explain the emergence of Everything from Nothing?

After mentally chewing on what our reality might be, I’ve fashioned and refined this thought:

Together "Light and Knowledge" are Inanimate, Intangible, and Inseparable. Together they birthed our reality and All that is or ever was in the first spark of thought that opened a galactic fissure in nothing filling it with everything.

Choice 1: “Evolution” Choice 2: “Creation.” But is there a third choice that doesn’t negate the first two choices? I believe there is. I believe our spirits might be immersed in a virtual-reality built to teach us the sad history of humanity on Earth. If you would like to explore my thoughts on this subject further, please read my unedited manuscript at: www.thegreatshipofknowledge.com

I'm a pragmatist. Both that thought is the universal force that created everything known to exist (all intangible) where nothing once was and that the universe exists quite independently of human thought or creative agency both strike me as claims which are not only unsupported but unsupportable and--more to the point--unnecessary to support. What practical effect does choosing one claim or the other (or, as I'd prefer, neither) have on how we conduct empirical science?

Can you tell us more about this empirical science?

Empirical science is making observations, creating a model to describe the data, collecting new data, then either revising the model or, in some cases, ditching the old model and creating a new one which can account for both old and new data more elegantly and simply.

The models are incredibly useful on a pragmatic level.

Wonderful. Then this model is a concept or abstraction, am I understanding you properly? That is, the model itself exists as an abstraction within human minds?

#9 "Together "Light and Knowledge" are Inanimate, Intangible, and Inseparable." - I take the first two designations (inanimate and intangible) to be uncontroversial, but I don't quite know what to make of this inseparability. To help clarify, how are you using "light" here? I'm inclined to treat it metaphorically, since otherwise light and knowledge seem categorically different - light is a perceptible physical phenomenon, whereas knowledge is a special set of appropriately justified beliefs (imperceptible, nonphysical, and not exactly a "phenomenon", strictly speaking). Also, obviously one can still know during a blackout under an eclipse, and one can still be ignorant in broad daylight during bright solar flares. So, as it stands, I don't really know how to consider your idea, since I'm not really sure what that idea is : P. Would love to hear about it in more concrete and specific language.

#10 I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that if it became generally accepted "that thought is the universal force that created everything known to exist (all intangible) where nothing once was", certain fundamental features of our scientific systems would be overturned. Adopting this claim would be to reinvent the substance and mechanism of the Big Bang, to invite thought into the realm of physical causation, and thus to reform our scientific theories and practices to account for thought as a primary natural force. Again, I'm not a scientist, but this might even strike a decisive blow in the debate between different and incompatible versions of quantum mechanics, being so easily related to observer-relative modals of quantum activity. So, it seems to me, that the verdict on this issue could indeed affect the way we conduct science (maybe even dramatically).

Just reading from your first post; without going farther down past your Einstein quote.

I like your enthusiasm and sincerity for the topic; and even just your posting it, is a pleasure to see. I hope nothing that anyone says in the thread that follows (though only 14 replies so far) discourages you. After all, look at what's happening over in the 'afterlife' thread.

I myself read a lot of philosophy and I think reality *should* be questioned at all times; both the external reality surrounding us...as well as our own internal reality. The goal always being that of: self-examination.

The value of questioning external reality (I assert) can often lead one to scrutinize our own existence and what each of our lives means to us. Isn't that of interest to everyone? Why would anyone want to settle for some conventional explanation handed to us from someone else, for what life is; what life could be? Einstein himself warned us against assuming that any question is ever really settled.

Anyway--like I said, even before reading down further, I'm predicting you'll run into some of the "quantum physics solves everything" cadre.

You're bound to run afoul of folks scoffing right in your face; telling you to dismiss all questioning and simply read more science feature articles from Yahoo Science or Space.com or some other reassuring bastion of convenient, intellectual mediocrity.

The USA is a technology-happy, technology-obsessed country and many people prefer it exactly that way. Meanwhile--philosophy--a field with a grand tradition in Europe--basically, scares Americans.

Real answers don't come from the internet and they don't come from quantum physicists. Heck, quantum physicists are as befuddled as anyone. They're the first to admit that every time they think they take a step forward--it plonks them right back among a peck of even more mysteries.

The big questions--as far as human beings need worry about-- are metaphysical. Way out of their ken. What does it really matter if there's possibly multiple universes surrounding us? You can't get to any of them. Whether there's one or a hundred, the only one which counts is the one you live your life in; the one you're going to someday die in.

'Popular science' is for the lazy-minded; the folks who don't really want to explore anything. As far as I'm concerned, I look forward to seeing if this thread matches the scope of the 'heaven/afterlife' brouhaha and if it does, I will be pleased to witness that...

#16 I found some of your post interesting, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the OP or the thread at large. Not trying to be mean, but you might want to read the thread before replying to it in the future (at least when it's as short as this one).

HI
I am reading a chapter in the book "American Continental Philosophy" by Charles E. Scott who is exploring the notion of "emptiness" as an aspect of all experience. Not thought or behaviour or cognition. It is a notion that experience is simultaneously sedimented and open.

This anthology suggests that America has developed a unique thread of continental philosophy within this second generation of scholars
Larry

That sounds fascinating. Can you elaborate at all on what constitutes this sedimentation and openness? (maybe they're technical terms I'm unfamiliar with)