63 ANSWERS
Who says it came from "nothing?"
All the current accepted cosmological models suggest the universe came from a singularity containing the entire mass energy of the universe in one point. That's not "nothing." In fact, that's just about the opposite of "nothing."
All the current accepted cosmological models suggest the universe came from a singularity containing the entire mass energy of the universe in one point. That's not "nothing." In fact, that's just about the opposite of "nothing."
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
You might be interested in reading this article:
[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
In summary, we have presented a mathematical proof that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing. When a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially if the ordering factor takes the value p = −2 (or 4). In this way, the early universe appears irreversibly. We have shown that it is the quantum potential that provides the power for the exponential expansion of the bubble. Thus, we can conclude that the birth of the early universe is completely determined by quantum mechanism.
Originally Answered: How can the universe just start from nothing?
All the answers (okay I stopped reading after the first 20) seem to have missed the basic physics involved here. The creation of the universe is not a philosophical question. It is a science issue, and mantras such as "nothing can be created from nothing" cut no ice with cosmologists:
- The universe is probably a zero-energy universe with the negative gravitational energy balancing the positive energy of matter. So the energy of the universe is no bar to its creation from nothing.
- The matter was created by comological inflation which is the same process that increased the size of the universe and powered the Hubble expansion we still see today.
So it is certainly possible that the universe was created from nothing. Or it possible that it has always existed via eternal inflation.
We do not know how the universe started; all we can do is make hypotheses. There are many of these, some involving extra dimensions and infinities that I cannot imagine. Bearing in mind Einstein’s admonition that things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler, I constructed the following model; I’m sure it is not original. Unfortunately, it uses infinities – I see no way to avoid this.
I think that there must exist a timeless and limitless void, containing empty space. All voids are unstable due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which requires virtual particles to appear in an empty void in accord with dx * dp >= h/2, where h is the reduced Planck constant, h/(2*pi).
Virtual particles are produced in pairs with their longevity determined by their mass; the heavier they are, the shorter their life span. When their life is up, the pair of particles recombine and vanish back into the nothingness from whence they came.
So now we have a pair of virtual particles that must recombine and go back to zero. How do we get a universe out of these? Well, we do it by setting one the two quantities on the left-hand side to zero. The quantities dx and dp can have several representations; the original derivation defined dx as the standard deviation of position and dp as the standard deviation of momentum. It can be argued that dx is mass and dp is time.
We know that mass is equivalent to energy, since E = M*c^2, and our premise is that the energy of the universe is zero. Therefore, its equivalent mass dx must be zero. Substituting zero for dx makes dp undefined, so our original pair of virtual particles no longer need to recombine and can become real particles.
There is a small but non-zero probability that one of the real particles will erupt into a universe like ours, hence the Big Bang, which occurred 13.8 billion years ago. This is how our universe began.
This elegant concept has a technical difficulty with an interesting resolution. The difficulty is that at the moment of the Big Bang, the particle’s energy mass does not yet equal its gravitational potential energy. This equality will not be achieved until the Big Bang expands so that its radius R is equal to M*G/c^2. Since we do not know what the mass of the universe M is, we cannot predict when this equilibrium will be attained.
The resolution of this difficulty is to realize that time is an illusion. For example, here is a thought experiment that proves that time is an illusion: When Amy in her rocket ship orbiting a large black hole sees Jeff in his rocket ship plunging towards the event horizon, she sees his rocket ship going slower and slower as it approaches the EH. When Jeff reaches the EH Amy sees his ship stop and freeze there indefinitely. Meanwhile, Jeff’s perception is that his ship plunges through the EH and on into the black hole with no problems brought on by passing the EH. This thought experiment shows that there is no absolute time; it is an illusion that depends on the observer.
This is how the gravitational potential energy that exists in a future time frame will offset the mass energy of the universe even when the Big Bang is much smaller than its equilibrium radius. This is how the universe started from nothing.
I think that there must exist a timeless and limitless void, containing empty space. All voids are unstable due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which requires virtual particles to appear in an empty void in accord with dx * dp >= h/2, where h is the reduced Planck constant, h/(2*pi).
Virtual particles are produced in pairs with their longevity determined by their mass; the heavier they are, the shorter their life span. When their life is up, the pair of particles recombine and vanish back into the nothingness from whence they came.
So now we have a pair of virtual particles that must recombine and go back to zero. How do we get a universe out of these? Well, we do it by setting one the two quantities on the left-hand side to zero. The quantities dx and dp can have several representations; the original derivation defined dx as the standard deviation of position and dp as the standard deviation of momentum. It can be argued that dx is mass and dp is time.
We know that mass is equivalent to energy, since E = M*c^2, and our premise is that the energy of the universe is zero. Therefore, its equivalent mass dx must be zero. Substituting zero for dx makes dp undefined, so our original pair of virtual particles no longer need to recombine and can become real particles.
There is a small but non-zero probability that one of the real particles will erupt into a universe like ours, hence the Big Bang, which occurred 13.8 billion years ago. This is how our universe began.
This elegant concept has a technical difficulty with an interesting resolution. The difficulty is that at the moment of the Big Bang, the particle’s energy mass does not yet equal its gravitational potential energy. This equality will not be achieved until the Big Bang expands so that its radius R is equal to M*G/c^2. Since we do not know what the mass of the universe M is, we cannot predict when this equilibrium will be attained.
The resolution of this difficulty is to realize that time is an illusion. For example, here is a thought experiment that proves that time is an illusion: When Amy in her rocket ship orbiting a large black hole sees Jeff in his rocket ship plunging towards the event horizon, she sees his rocket ship going slower and slower as it approaches the EH. When Jeff reaches the EH Amy sees his ship stop and freeze there indefinitely. Meanwhile, Jeff’s perception is that his ship plunges through the EH and on into the black hole with no problems brought on by passing the EH. This thought experiment shows that there is no absolute time; it is an illusion that depends on the observer.
This is how the gravitational potential energy that exists in a future time frame will offset the mass energy of the universe even when the Big Bang is much smaller than its equilibrium radius. This is how the universe started from nothing.
Originally Answered: How/when did everything begin?
I'm willing to go with "Does it really matter?" OR
"Couldn't there have been a Big Bang when God created the world?"
Or - "All of the above"
PS. "Christians" do not believe that God created the world just a couple of thousand years ago - CREATIONISTS believe that - that's just a small section of some Christians. I most certainly have never believed that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Not even when I was 5 years old, raised Baptist, and born again. Never.
"Couldn't there have been a Big Bang when God created the world?"
Or - "All of the above"
PS. "Christians" do not believe that God created the world just a couple of thousand years ago - CREATIONISTS believe that - that's just a small section of some Christians. I most certainly have never believed that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Not even when I was 5 years old, raised Baptist, and born again. Never.
Originally Answered: If everything had to have a beginning, then how did existence come in to being?
How do you know everything had a beginning? Isn't that plagued with infinite regress? God wouldn't work as an uncaused cause, because you've already claimed everything had a beginning, so something or someone would have to cause God, and something would have to cause God's cause, and so on ad infinitum.
How do you know that the Universe in some form is not infinite?
Quantum mechanics suggests that space and time are illusions of consciousness. They may be very compelling emergent properties of the quantum world projected up onto the macro world, but they may not exist outside our consciousness. Here's an answer with more on how that might be. There was no beginning. There is just here and now. Or as the Zen koan goes:
How do you know that's not the right answer?
When the truth is "I don't know." it may not be as comforting as "Magic Man done it." but it's a whole lot more likely to lead us to keep looking and eventually find out. And it's a whole lot more intellectually honest.
How do you know that the Universe in some form is not infinite?
Quantum mechanics suggests that space and time are illusions of consciousness. They may be very compelling emergent properties of the quantum world projected up onto the macro world, but they may not exist outside our consciousness. Here's an answer with more on how that might be. There was no beginning. There is just here and now. Or as the Zen koan goes:
The wind was flapping a temple flag.
Two monks were arguing about it.
One said the flag was moving;
The other said the wind was moving.
Arguing back and forth they could come to no agreement.
The Master came by and said:
Not the flag, Not the Wind, Mind is moving.
How do you know that's not the right answer?
When the truth is "I don't know." it may not be as comforting as "Magic Man done it." but it's a whole lot more likely to lead us to keep looking and eventually find out. And it's a whole lot more intellectually honest.
Originally Answered: How can the universe just start from nothing?
We don't know. We don't actually know that it started from nothing. We can only see back to a certain point after a hypothetical zero point. If we extrapolate back from what we can see to before the earliest moment that we can see, it would start from a point. But we don't know that it is valid to make such an extrapolation.
So rather than make up some story for what we do not know, we prefer to say nothing about it. Note: not to say it was nothing. Just to admit our ignorance. There is a horizon there we cannot see over. We feel this is a more honest attitude than inventing something for which there is no evidence.
Originally Answered: If everything had to have a beginning, then how did existence come in to being?
Hehe yes I understand why. It's not only the nothing before the beginning, but the nothing after 'the end'. Being dead is 'like' you were before you were born; it's our lack of ability to understand the concept of 'nothing' that hurts the most.
Originally Answered: How can (or did) the universe originate from nothing?
Origination is an event: to even talk about "origination from nothing" assumes there is a history around it, in which that event can be placed. The shape of the question itself contradicts any possible answer.
The universe, the whole of spacetime, exists (or seems to). Big Bangs and black holes are merely attributes of it, not originations or vanishings of spacetime its unitary self. This was well expressed by Sir Thomas Browne, long before General Relativity:
...in eternity there is no distinction of Tenses, and therefore that terrible terme Predestination, which hath troubled so many weake heads to conceive and the wisest to explaine, is in respect to God no prescious determination of our estates to come, but a definitive blast of his will already fulfilled, and at the instant that he first decreed it; for to his eternity which is indivisible,
and altogether, the last Trump is already sounded, the reprobates in the flame, and the blessed in Abrahams bosome. Saint Peter speaks modestly, when hee saith a thousand years to God are but as one day: for to speake like a Philosopher, those continued instancesof time which flow into thousand yeares, make not to him one moment; what to us is to come, to his Eternity is present, his whole duration being but one permanent point without succession, parts, flux, or division.
Leave God out of this, and it still knocks down the "origination" idea. The question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" makes more sense than "Why did something start?". The universe apparently has a Big Bang, but that is no more its origin than your toes are the origin of you.
The universe, the whole of spacetime, exists (or seems to). Big Bangs and black holes are merely attributes of it, not originations or vanishings of spacetime its unitary self. This was well expressed by Sir Thomas Browne, long before General Relativity:
...in eternity there is no distinction of Tenses, and therefore that terrible terme Predestination, which hath troubled so many weake heads to conceive and the wisest to explaine, is in respect to God no prescious determination of our estates to come, but a definitive blast of his will already fulfilled, and at the instant that he first decreed it; for to his eternity which is indivisible,
and altogether, the last Trump is already sounded, the reprobates in the flame, and the blessed in Abrahams bosome. Saint Peter speaks modestly, when hee saith a thousand years to God are but as one day: for to speake like a Philosopher, those continued instancesof time which flow into thousand yeares, make not to him one moment; what to us is to come, to his Eternity is present, his whole duration being but one permanent point without succession, parts, flux, or division.
Leave God out of this, and it still knocks down the "origination" idea. The question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" makes more sense than "Why did something start?". The universe apparently has a Big Bang, but that is no more its origin than your toes are the origin of you.
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
I have read a few of the answers given so far and would like to contribute from my own thoughts that don't understand the first thing about quantum mechanics.
Both time and the stuff our universe is expanding into must be infinite. If not, what is before or outside of these things, and if they are not infinite, what is beyond, etc? I am also pretty sure energy never gets used up - it just changes form. So I don't think the universe came from "nothing." I think over huge expanses of time, universes come and go. I also like the idea of multiple universes existing at once. But the nagging question has to be, where did the original come from? Theists say God created everything including himself, but I don't buy that on this line of thought. For God to will himself into existence, He would need conscious thought that would require a brain (whether physical or ethereal, a thought process must be involved or God would have come into existence through random chance). But you cannot have the "brain" without first being created, so the God idea flies out the window in a flash of logic.
At this point my brain hurts, and I started looking to SF writers for inspiration. Farmer wrote a great series starting with "World of Tiers." I have also self published the first of four books that give my own fictional take on the multiverse and multiple Gods. I won't outrageously self promote, but the well known self promotion site let you read a good deal before you decide to buy.
Both time and the stuff our universe is expanding into must be infinite. If not, what is before or outside of these things, and if they are not infinite, what is beyond, etc? I am also pretty sure energy never gets used up - it just changes form. So I don't think the universe came from "nothing." I think over huge expanses of time, universes come and go. I also like the idea of multiple universes existing at once. But the nagging question has to be, where did the original come from? Theists say God created everything including himself, but I don't buy that on this line of thought. For God to will himself into existence, He would need conscious thought that would require a brain (whether physical or ethereal, a thought process must be involved or God would have come into existence through random chance). But you cannot have the "brain" without first being created, so the God idea flies out the window in a flash of logic.
At this point my brain hurts, and I started looking to SF writers for inspiration. Farmer wrote a great series starting with "World of Tiers." I have also self published the first of four books that give my own fictional take on the multiverse and multiple Gods. I won't outrageously self promote, but the well known self promotion site let you read a good deal before you decide to buy.
That is not a fundamental tenet of science. If there were such a thing, it would probably be 'question everything', including your proposed tenet.
The WMAP satellite has measured a curvature of the total universe that is very close to zero, within measurement error - it could be exactly zero. This would imply that the universe has net zero contents, so on the largest of scales, there is nothing; there has been no creation. If the universe has equal amounts of positive and negative energy than there has been no violation in energy conservation in the production of an (illusory) something from nothing. Similarly, there has been no net production of charge - there are equal positive and negative charges. The sum of all the angular momenta in the galaxies also amounts to zero - if spin must be conserved along with charge and energy, then we can still get the modern universe from zero energy/charge/spin. It really does seem to come from nothing when the accounting is done across the entire observable universe.
The WMAP satellite has measured a curvature of the total universe that is very close to zero, within measurement error - it could be exactly zero. This would imply that the universe has net zero contents, so on the largest of scales, there is nothing; there has been no creation. If the universe has equal amounts of positive and negative energy than there has been no violation in energy conservation in the production of an (illusory) something from nothing. Similarly, there has been no net production of charge - there are equal positive and negative charges. The sum of all the angular momenta in the galaxies also amounts to zero - if spin must be conserved along with charge and energy, then we can still get the modern universe from zero energy/charge/spin. It really does seem to come from nothing when the accounting is done across the entire observable universe.
It didn’t.
Some answers on this question seem to suggest that somehow something can come from nothing, but those arguments just redefine “nothing” as if it is something. If something could have come from nothing, then nothing is not really nothing. But nothing is only nothing, not the contrary of itself.
The underlying problem is that the question in a sense presupposed the seperation of somethingness (or: being) and nothingness (or: nothing) as if each individual term could exist apart and seperate from the other. Being and nothing are just opposing notions which belong together (like light and darkness, up and down, northpole and southpole, lifeand death, etc) and form a union. Outside of that union, these notion do not have any meaning. The combined truth of something and nothing is becoming. In becoming (both coming-to-be and ceasing-to-be) it is already understood that something turns into nothing, and vice versa simultaneously.
In application of this, we can then understand that the question: “why is there something rather then nothing” is realy a bad question (in a similar fashion as the question: “why have you beaten your wife” is a bad question, in the case you in fact have never been beating your wife, the question thus presupposes a falsehood), in that the question in fact already presupposes that something and nothing are only seperated from each other instead of forming a unity of opposites.
Further reading:
Originally Answered: How/when did everything begin?
The big bang is believed to have occurred about 13.8 billion years ago.
What happened before that?
There are different theories. My own belief is that nothing happened before that and that the question is meaningless - I think it's like asking "what's north of the north pole?" or "What's below the center of the Earth?"
What happened before that?
There are different theories. My own belief is that nothing happened before that and that the question is meaningless - I think it's like asking "what's north of the north pole?" or "What's below the center of the Earth?"
Originally Answered: How can the universe just start from nothing?
Physics and cosmology make no predictions or theories about what it was that caused the Big Bang. They only describe the processes of the start of the universe, not what initiated it.
Be aware, until the Big Bang, there was no time. So in a sense, there isn’t any “before the start” to talk about. Not in the sense that we understand causality in our universe.
See also: What existed before the Big Bang?
Originally Answered: If everything had to have a beginning, then how did existence come in to being?
You may have a fundament error in your logic because not everything has a beginning and as an example consider the Möbius strip .
And, if you were to consider a multi-dimensional spacetime continuum along the surface of the strip, you may have a different understanding of the concept of beginning.
Even more fundamental to the question is the idea of self-awareness. When did we originally conceive that we are what we are and then proceed to discover, first, our environment; and then other universes.
You are right: my head hurts too when I explore the possibilities as a thought experiment.
Even more fundamental to the question is the idea of self-awareness. When did we originally conceive that we are what we are and then proceed to discover, first, our environment; and then other universes.
You are right: my head hurts too when I explore the possibilities as a thought experiment.
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
Seems plausible, provided you are discussing the concept of "nothing" from the standpoint of what a physicist/cosmologist understands it to mean, rather than what a layperson thinks it means.
A Universe from Nothing
A Universe from Nothing
Originally Answered: If everything had to have a beginning, then how did existence come in to being?
To focus on the idea of a beginning for a universe, the answer is that we don't really know. There are a number of speculations which don't hold up under scrutiny.
One is that the universe came into existence spontaneously. Quantum fluctuations allow this but it requires that Space/Time exists. When there was nothing it wasn't just that Space/Time was empty, but that Space and Time didn't exist, hence no place for quantum fluctuations to exist.
Other theories, like Stephen Hawkings idea that the universe is one big loop, where it grows and then shrinks then blows up again have been shown to be false because the universe keeps on expanding.
We know that there was a big bang, and we don't know of anything before then. There is evidence that the laws of physics were actually different near the beginning of the big bang which indicates that space/time was not the same at the time of the big bang than it is now, and maybe it didn't even exist.
There are lots of theories but really no actual explanation.
One is that the universe came into existence spontaneously. Quantum fluctuations allow this but it requires that Space/Time exists. When there was nothing it wasn't just that Space/Time was empty, but that Space and Time didn't exist, hence no place for quantum fluctuations to exist.
Other theories, like Stephen Hawkings idea that the universe is one big loop, where it grows and then shrinks then blows up again have been shown to be false because the universe keeps on expanding.
We know that there was a big bang, and we don't know of anything before then. There is evidence that the laws of physics were actually different near the beginning of the big bang which indicates that space/time was not the same at the time of the big bang than it is now, and maybe it didn't even exist.
There are lots of theories but really no actual explanation.
Originally Answered: If everything had to have a beginning, then how did existence come in to being?
To understand anything it is necessary to take at least something for granted. Generally we take existence for granted, but for the most part things exist merely because we think they exist or pay attention to them. Do things exist we do not pay attention to? Well, if so, what are they? Unfortunately, identifying them, causes us to pay attention, too, so whether things exist we do not pay attention to cannot be determined.
The question helps illustrate problems and circular reasoning inherent to the contemporary Platonism we know as reality.
The question helps illustrate problems and circular reasoning inherent to the contemporary Platonism we know as reality.
Originally Answered: How/when did everything begin?
It is only a small subset of Christians who believe in Creationism, but that is beside the point. All religions claim to know the answer, which is usually that their god (or gods) caused the universe to come into existence. Unfortunately none of their answer ever stand up to scientific scrutiny. Some people can accept religion beliefs on faith, but I am afraid I need rational proof.
Humankind has been pondering these questions for as long as we have existed as a species and have developed better and better theories to explain the origins of the universe, but the more we discover, the more questions we uncover. The best guess at present is the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago and will go on expanding forever. There is no before or after, because time does not exist outside of the universe.
So do I believe this? No, but I accept it as the best answer we have for now. History tells us that scientific theories change, so I am ready to change my mind when a more convincing argument comes along.
What I do believe is that our little monkey brains will never manage to find out the full answer. Perhaps within the next 50-100 years or so humans will succeed in creating Artifical Intelligences that so far surpass us our limited mental capabilities that they could discover the beginning of everything. Sadly though, even if the AI's succeed, I suspect humans will never be able to fully comprehend the answers.
Humankind has been pondering these questions for as long as we have existed as a species and have developed better and better theories to explain the origins of the universe, but the more we discover, the more questions we uncover. The best guess at present is the universe began about 13.8 billion years ago and will go on expanding forever. There is no before or after, because time does not exist outside of the universe.
So do I believe this? No, but I accept it as the best answer we have for now. History tells us that scientific theories change, so I am ready to change my mind when a more convincing argument comes along.
What I do believe is that our little monkey brains will never manage to find out the full answer. Perhaps within the next 50-100 years or so humans will succeed in creating Artifical Intelligences that so far surpass us our limited mental capabilities that they could discover the beginning of everything. Sadly though, even if the AI's succeed, I suspect humans will never be able to fully comprehend the answers.
Originally Answered: How/when did everything begin?
Not just "some scientists" but nearly all scientists concur with the Big Bang theory because, as scientists, they accept the best available evidence. I'm old enough to remember the time before the Big Bang theory was well established, and I found the steady-state theory to be reasonable. Of course, I didn't have the knowledge of physics or mathematics to see it through on my own, so I selected what I thought was the best answer. Since then, so much additional data has been collected, thanks in no small part to the Hubble telescope, that supports the Big Bang that I accept this explanation. It's not matter of faith but of reasoning.
Like most Americans, I grew up being told the Biblical version of Creation, but by age 8 I was already finding holes and contradictions in the Bible texts which adults could not explain, so I did my own research to find that science explained things quite well without the need for 1, 3 or thousands of gods. I'm still rather fond of the Greek gods, though. They seem so much more approachable than anybody else's version of divinity.
Like most Americans, I grew up being told the Biblical version of Creation, but by age 8 I was already finding holes and contradictions in the Bible texts which adults could not explain, so I did my own research to find that science explained things quite well without the need for 1, 3 or thousands of gods. I'm still rather fond of the Greek gods, though. They seem so much more approachable than anybody else's version of divinity.
Originally Answered: If everything had to have a beginning, then how did existence come in to being?
Existence is all there is, all there ever was and all there ever will be. The most pure existence is nothingness. Nothingness is random chaos, which masks perfect symmetries, which each mask random chaos, and back again in a never-starting and never-ending unfolding fractal. And from this nothingness comes everything. To ask what existed before nothingness is like asking how fast is the number 5.
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
There are a number of paradoxes around these kinds of questions, and it seems they cannot be answered in normal logical terms.
Either something had to come from nothing (which defies reason, if we literally mean nothing) or else there has to have been an infinitely long chain of causation. It seems that our normal reasoning, derived from our experience within the universe, cannot be applied to the origins of the universe.
Unless, that is, we accept as explanations ideas like time or causation not existing prior to the universe existing. It's true that space appears to be subject to random quantum fluctuations, but even if the universe is one such fluctuation, we would still need space or the laws of physics to have existed prior to the universe, which puts us back in the same position.
Either something had to come from nothing (which defies reason, if we literally mean nothing) or else there has to have been an infinitely long chain of causation. It seems that our normal reasoning, derived from our experience within the universe, cannot be applied to the origins of the universe.
Unless, that is, we accept as explanations ideas like time or causation not existing prior to the universe existing. It's true that space appears to be subject to random quantum fluctuations, but even if the universe is one such fluctuation, we would still need space or the laws of physics to have existed prior to the universe, which puts us back in the same position.
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
A difficult question, which perhaps requires new ways of thinking to get around it with a few answers and potential criticisms of two of them.
1) Do Space, Time and Cause/Effect actually exist?
If you go back several centuries to the philosopher Immanuel Kant (and also Leibnitz), a concept was developed that time itself doesn't exist, and space and causality as well.
They are rather something our minds create in order to "understand" the world around us, in other words, things conform to our ways of knowing, which is space, time and causality.
This theory was referred to as the ideality of space and time. In that sense, cause and effect have no meaning, and time also, has no meaning apart from human awareness. The universe doesn't require a start or "prime-mover" simply because space, time, cause and effect have no reality apart from our experience of them.
Answer:
This solution eliminates the reality of time, and it doesn't really explain how the universe or even our "way of knowing" that creates space, time and causality, has come to be....instead, it removes the question altogether by eliminating assumptions we have of reality and most importantly, causality.
One critic back in the day tried to demonstrate its fallacy by kicking a rock in order to demonstrate that the world does not exist within our minds but is a real thing.
Although perhaps not the best, or least painful, criticism, it does demonstrate a point that things do have a reality for us as human beings, and probably do in-themselves as well since we exist, and appear to interact with other things in a way that requires cause and effect, et cetera.
2) Others have tried to answer the question by re-imagining the question itself by analyzing our use of language and the way we describe things.
Modern physics and quantum mechanics combined with insights from certain 20th century philosophers such as Wittgenstein, probably do the best job of "re-imagining" the question so there's an answer that at least makes some "sense" of why there is something rather than Nothing.
For the philosopher Wittgenstein, the way we use language creates problematic questions such as this, as we try to describe Time by applying spacial metaphors to describe it, which then creates linguistic confusions that lead to such things as Zeno's Paradoxes and this very question.
Time might be its own thing, and can't really be described using language we might use to describe things moving through space, for example. This leads to another potential explanation that:
3) Time exists, and our fundamental assumption about "Nothing" is incorrect.
There can never be Nothing without removing Time, and Time has always existed, therefore, "something" has always existed as emergent properties of Time.
One recent book that helps shed light on this is A Universe from Nothing by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss. Basically, while we think of space as empty, space isn't actually "empty" and exerts a small gravitational or quantum effect that in turn creates virtual particles or information, and this quite possibly leads to the creation of what we would consider our universe. A universe from nothing, as the title goes. His critics state that he does nothing to answer the deep philosophical sense of Nothing, though.
However, several theories of "Time" when combined with the above physics and Wittgenstein's analysis of faulty language descriptions, might help one to understand the question even in the deep philosophical sense, and the answer isn't how did something come from nothing, it's that how did something come to be from the existence of Time itself.
If we are to accept Wittgenstein's proposal not to describe time using spacial metaphors and view it instead as what we experience as "being", then we can say that Time is not only real, but it always has been real and is the ground from which all the other properties of our world emerge: space, for example, is also a property that emerges from Time's "being". Through space and quantum fluctuations in gravity, information or what we consider virtual particles and so on, also emerge, which are responsible for the universe we experience.
Time does not require a beginning, a creator, a start, because causality is not a property of time itself, causality is rather a property that emerges from the existence of time.
Just as water is an emergent property out of certain hydrogen and oxygen molecules at a certain temperature and pressure, the world as we know it is a vast web of information that emerges via the interplay of quantum forces all of which emerge through Time being the most fundamental aspect of reality.
The universe did not just come into existence from nothing, but because Time exists, and we assume, has always existed as we experience it now. The universe has always existed in some form or another as an emergent property of Time.
Answer:
There is no evidence to support there was anything before the Big Bang, and therefore, no evidence to support that Time existed before then and that Time always exists or is in fact real apart from our awareness of it. There is no empirical data to confirm its validity despite the fact that time appears to be real right now.
Having said that, the above theory still does an acceptable job at explaining why there is something rather than nothing, and while there is little doubt a Big Bang was responsible for our current observable universe, some might be willing to bet the universe is infinitely older, to the point where such concepts as "young" and "old" have no meaning because trying to describe Time using metaphors used to describe temporal life are ultimately bound to fail.
Resorting to theistic explanations (which is ultimately what the Big Bang requires), also doesn't answer the question of how something like the Big Bang could have started from Nothing, or how whoever/whatever created the Big-Bang could also come from Nothing. The solution will always require something that exists beyond causality, beyond cause and effect, and Time is the one thing that we have evidence "exists" based on the fact that we are experiencing it right now.
For the moment, at least, I like the explanation that the universe emerges naturally as a by-product of Time, it is the information that comes to be from Time's very existence, and Time by itself cannot be described in such terms as "Nothing" since there has never been a time without Time.
1) Do Space, Time and Cause/Effect actually exist?
If you go back several centuries to the philosopher Immanuel Kant (and also Leibnitz), a concept was developed that time itself doesn't exist, and space and causality as well.
They are rather something our minds create in order to "understand" the world around us, in other words, things conform to our ways of knowing, which is space, time and causality.
This theory was referred to as the ideality of space and time. In that sense, cause and effect have no meaning, and time also, has no meaning apart from human awareness. The universe doesn't require a start or "prime-mover" simply because space, time, cause and effect have no reality apart from our experience of them.
Answer:
This solution eliminates the reality of time, and it doesn't really explain how the universe or even our "way of knowing" that creates space, time and causality, has come to be....instead, it removes the question altogether by eliminating assumptions we have of reality and most importantly, causality.
One critic back in the day tried to demonstrate its fallacy by kicking a rock in order to demonstrate that the world does not exist within our minds but is a real thing.
Although perhaps not the best, or least painful, criticism, it does demonstrate a point that things do have a reality for us as human beings, and probably do in-themselves as well since we exist, and appear to interact with other things in a way that requires cause and effect, et cetera.
2) Others have tried to answer the question by re-imagining the question itself by analyzing our use of language and the way we describe things.
Modern physics and quantum mechanics combined with insights from certain 20th century philosophers such as Wittgenstein, probably do the best job of "re-imagining" the question so there's an answer that at least makes some "sense" of why there is something rather than Nothing.
For the philosopher Wittgenstein, the way we use language creates problematic questions such as this, as we try to describe Time by applying spacial metaphors to describe it, which then creates linguistic confusions that lead to such things as Zeno's Paradoxes and this very question.
Time might be its own thing, and can't really be described using language we might use to describe things moving through space, for example. This leads to another potential explanation that:
3) Time exists, and our fundamental assumption about "Nothing" is incorrect.
There can never be Nothing without removing Time, and Time has always existed, therefore, "something" has always existed as emergent properties of Time.
One recent book that helps shed light on this is A Universe from Nothing by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss. Basically, while we think of space as empty, space isn't actually "empty" and exerts a small gravitational or quantum effect that in turn creates virtual particles or information, and this quite possibly leads to the creation of what we would consider our universe. A universe from nothing, as the title goes. His critics state that he does nothing to answer the deep philosophical sense of Nothing, though.
However, several theories of "Time" when combined with the above physics and Wittgenstein's analysis of faulty language descriptions, might help one to understand the question even in the deep philosophical sense, and the answer isn't how did something come from nothing, it's that how did something come to be from the existence of Time itself.
If we are to accept Wittgenstein's proposal not to describe time using spacial metaphors and view it instead as what we experience as "being", then we can say that Time is not only real, but it always has been real and is the ground from which all the other properties of our world emerge: space, for example, is also a property that emerges from Time's "being". Through space and quantum fluctuations in gravity, information or what we consider virtual particles and so on, also emerge, which are responsible for the universe we experience.
Time does not require a beginning, a creator, a start, because causality is not a property of time itself, causality is rather a property that emerges from the existence of time.
Just as water is an emergent property out of certain hydrogen and oxygen molecules at a certain temperature and pressure, the world as we know it is a vast web of information that emerges via the interplay of quantum forces all of which emerge through Time being the most fundamental aspect of reality.
The universe did not just come into existence from nothing, but because Time exists, and we assume, has always existed as we experience it now. The universe has always existed in some form or another as an emergent property of Time.
Answer:
There is no evidence to support there was anything before the Big Bang, and therefore, no evidence to support that Time existed before then and that Time always exists or is in fact real apart from our awareness of it. There is no empirical data to confirm its validity despite the fact that time appears to be real right now.
Having said that, the above theory still does an acceptable job at explaining why there is something rather than nothing, and while there is little doubt a Big Bang was responsible for our current observable universe, some might be willing to bet the universe is infinitely older, to the point where such concepts as "young" and "old" have no meaning because trying to describe Time using metaphors used to describe temporal life are ultimately bound to fail.
Resorting to theistic explanations (which is ultimately what the Big Bang requires), also doesn't answer the question of how something like the Big Bang could have started from Nothing, or how whoever/whatever created the Big-Bang could also come from Nothing. The solution will always require something that exists beyond causality, beyond cause and effect, and Time is the one thing that we have evidence "exists" based on the fact that we are experiencing it right now.
For the moment, at least, I like the explanation that the universe emerges naturally as a by-product of Time, it is the information that comes to be from Time's very existence, and Time by itself cannot be described in such terms as "Nothing" since there has never been a time without Time.
Originally Answered: How/when did everything begin?
Well, yes, scientists NOW say the universe began some 13 billion years ago, but that's only because we measured it and that's the number that fell out. Before we measured it, it began at every possible time ago. You know how quantum physics works, nothing is definite until measured. Strictly speaking the universe could have been created 2o minutes ago; there's no logical reason why not. Or course a past, a real past, had to come into existence with it. God could very well have created the universe two or six thousand years ago and also created the past we now see traces of. Yes, a real past. Why not? There's nothing illogical about it. Some Buddhists say a new universe comes into existence 60 times a second. Why not? Time is a fucking hard thing to figure out. Impossible actually. Actually, in some very good theories of physics, time not only goes forward but also backward. A positron is just an electron going backward in time. In which case the universe is rushing toward creation, not away from it. Personally, I think here are timeless, i.e. eternal universal forms that are exemplified by this and that particular and among those forms there are time relations. There are no moments or places where that happens. Moments and places don't exist. Therefore, there is no When when the universe was created. Eternity is just Eternity. Pure timelessness. Maybe the universe is eternally six thousand years old. Maybe eternally it is every possible age. Time is a mind fuck.
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
It depends on perspective.
The universe came from nothing or it came from infinity.
Infinity seems like nothing as it's the same nothing which is all around.
The material/physical universe manifested from a non-physical invisible existence, which you may like to term 'nothing', but that realm of nothing has intelligence.
The universe came from nothing or it came from infinity.
Infinity seems like nothing as it's the same nothing which is all around.
The material/physical universe manifested from a non-physical invisible existence, which you may like to term 'nothing', but that realm of nothing has intelligence.
We don't know if it came from nothing, since we don't know what happened at the moment of the Big Bang, we only know what happened after that.
We don't know if 'nothing' can even exist. What is nothing? Is it the absence of everything, then how can you even talk about it? It seems very unlikely that you can have a box full of nothing, it would be a hole in space-time itself. We've never seen such a thing so we don't know if it can even exist.
There is a lot of things we don't know. In fact, we don't even know if this question even makes sense, maybe it's like 'what is south of the southpole?'
We simply don't know
Yet.
We don't know if 'nothing' can even exist. What is nothing? Is it the absence of everything, then how can you even talk about it? It seems very unlikely that you can have a box full of nothing, it would be a hole in space-time itself. We've never seen such a thing so we don't know if it can even exist.
There is a lot of things we don't know. In fact, we don't even know if this question even makes sense, maybe it's like 'what is south of the southpole?'
We simply don't know
Yet.
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
You could start with the intellectual understanding of impermanence. You saw this flower yesterday, and it is no more today, you had this fit of anger and it is not there anymore. Whatever you put a finger on, it is here now, it is not later. Like passing clouds, like light dancing on water.
A deeper knowing happens when one brings the essence of this truth into ones own understanding of the world we live in, perceive and express.
A deeper knowing happens when one brings the essence of this truth into ones own understanding of the world we live in, perceive and express.
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
Sure looks like it. But the concept of 'nothing' is, well, weird, and what we think of as 'nothing, a vacuum, is really seething with potential. So, that nothing is really something, that averages out to nothing after all - except when it accidentally creates something.
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
I heard on a podcast that the substance of the universe was created from a 5% (or was it 0.5%?) imbalance between matter and antimatter. And it was this imbalance that created the universe.
So this seems to suggest that nothing is the balance of matter and antimatter.
So this seems to suggest that nothing is the balance of matter and antimatter.
Originally Answered: If everything had to have a beginning, then how did existence come in to being?
The asked question is: "If everything had to have a beginning, then how did existence come in to being?"
For there to be something, it in NOT necessary that everything have a beginning; it is only necessary that something has always existed without a beginning -- perhaps an uncaused immaterial cognitively willful supernatural Almighty creator God (which I doubt), or perhaps uncaused mass/energy in some exotic state and form or other including possibly a state and form of quantum potential field - which is the actual case about what has has always existed from eternity without cause/beginning we presently cannot say (and may well never, ever be able to say for sure), but I (for one) presently prefer the conjecture of a quantum potential field having always existd from eternity since I have abundant objective evidence that mass/energy does exist today in a number of different interchangeable forms, and I have no objective (nor any personal purely-subjective-of-my-own) evidence for the existence of any God.
For there to be something, it in NOT necessary that everything have a beginning; it is only necessary that something has always existed without a beginning -- perhaps an uncaused immaterial cognitively willful supernatural Almighty creator God (which I doubt), or perhaps uncaused mass/energy in some exotic state and form or other including possibly a state and form of quantum potential field - which is the actual case about what has has always existed from eternity without cause/beginning we presently cannot say (and may well never, ever be able to say for sure), but I (for one) presently prefer the conjecture of a quantum potential field having always existd from eternity since I have abundant objective evidence that mass/energy does exist today in a number of different interchangeable forms, and I have no objective (nor any personal purely-subjective-of-my-own) evidence for the existence of any God.
Originally Answered: If everything had to have a beginning, then how did existence come in to being?
The question of the year.
There not´s a really conclusive answer for that i guess. Probably is something beyond human knowledge.
There the scientific explanation and there´s the regilious one too. None of them is clear about the other. Each one of them is going to defend their point of view and their point of departure.
I recommed to read ¨The theory of everything¨ by Stephen Hawking. it aslso has a movie that win some OScar on 2014. I recommed always the reading.
You can find some answers there.
There not´s a really conclusive answer for that i guess. Probably is something beyond human knowledge.
There the scientific explanation and there´s the regilious one too. None of them is clear about the other. Each one of them is going to defend their point of view and their point of departure.
I recommed to read ¨The theory of everything¨ by Stephen Hawking. it aslso has a movie that win some OScar on 2014. I recommed always the reading.
You can find some answers there.
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
Everything which Exists in the manifested universe WAS (in the meaning of TO BE /not to exists/) in the "Nothing" which actually was not nothing. By other words the start from nothing is a start from UNMANIFESTED "SOMETHING" in which is "contained" EVERYTHING to be manifested.
This is one of the crucial issue about the right understanding of heavily misunderstood terms of spiritual teachings, such as emptiness, nothingness. no-self, illusion...
The religions and spiritual teachings are on earth from time immemorial just because the ancient people understood that something can not be from nothing. Different matter is how the particular religions look at that nothing in which was everything.
Popular religious understandings of God do not have today the same place as they used to have in the historic time. Because the God, only as a term, does not explain anything. Popular religions keep speaking about an abstract God without any deeper penetration into the universe mysteries. That is the reason that we have ever growing number of atheists.
Therefore, also from the time immemorial there are more levels of religions or spiritual teachings. From dualistic, through partially non-dualistic to non-dualistic.
This is one of the crucial issue about the right understanding of heavily misunderstood terms of spiritual teachings, such as emptiness, nothingness. no-self, illusion...
The religions and spiritual teachings are on earth from time immemorial just because the ancient people understood that something can not be from nothing. Different matter is how the particular religions look at that nothing in which was everything.
Popular religious understandings of God do not have today the same place as they used to have in the historic time. Because the God, only as a term, does not explain anything. Popular religions keep speaking about an abstract God without any deeper penetration into the universe mysteries. That is the reason that we have ever growing number of atheists.
Therefore, also from the time immemorial there are more levels of religions or spiritual teachings. From dualistic, through partially non-dualistic to non-dualistic.
Originally Answered: How/when did everything begin?
No one knows the answer to this question, and if someone claims to know, then they are liars.
There is one plausible hypothesis, The Big Bang. This has not been proven yet nor do we have enough evidence to claim this would be the answer.
There is no evidence pointing at the God hypothesis, and people have had thousands of years to gather evidence without any luck though.
There is one plausible hypothesis, The Big Bang. This has not been proven yet nor do we have enough evidence to claim this would be the answer.
There is no evidence pointing at the God hypothesis, and people have had thousands of years to gather evidence without any luck though.
matter and energy are interchangeable. There was NO MATTER in the Big Bang, because matter could NOT exit until the Universe expanded and cooled down enough for energy to start converting into matter. No matter HOW you worite the equation and no matter how many times and how many people try to explain this to the people who keep asking this question incessantly and repeatedly just to create ANOTHER online argemnt. . NO ANSWER WILL SATISFY these people. The Truthful answer "we do not KNOW>' where EITHER the energy if the Big bang came from will stasfy you. No matter what hypothetical and theoretical answers people give repeatedly online when answering this question, there is NO ANSWER that will satisfy the people who repeatedly ask this question online just to create another online argument for the sake of having their egos fed with all the unsatisfactory answers.
E = mc^2
M = E./c^2
Even another universe collapsing into a negative singularity, a.k.a a black hole that became a POSITIVE mathematical singularity, the Big Bang that created THIS universe with four or more forces, the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic energy, a.k.a "light" and gravity does not satisfy the people who are obsessed with getting an answer to this particular question.. There was NO MATTER exploding that created This universe. The Big Bang was ALL ENERGY, and NO ONE KNOWS WHERE that energy came from.
Solve the unified field theory equations and you MIGHT have your answer, but i doubt that will satisfy. Even a Nobel prize will not satisfy the people who are obsessed with creating online arguments because the only thing the care about themselves and their egos.
E = mc^2
M = E./c^2
Even another universe collapsing into a negative singularity, a.k.a a black hole that became a POSITIVE mathematical singularity, the Big Bang that created THIS universe with four or more forces, the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic energy, a.k.a "light" and gravity does not satisfy the people who are obsessed with getting an answer to this particular question.. There was NO MATTER exploding that created This universe. The Big Bang was ALL ENERGY, and NO ONE KNOWS WHERE that energy came from.
Solve the unified field theory equations and you MIGHT have your answer, but i doubt that will satisfy. Even a Nobel prize will not satisfy the people who are obsessed with creating online arguments because the only thing the care about themselves and their egos.
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
Most of the modern physicists maintain that the universe has actually originated from nothing, thus requiring no supernatural agency for its creation.Here their logic is something like this: as they have found that the total energy of the universe is zero, so they have argued that no outside agent was at all necessary to provide the initial input energy for starting the universe; therefore, it can simply originate from nothing. If the total energy of the universe were having some very big non-zero value, then it would not have been possible for them to maintain the same thing that the universe had actually originated from nothing. Because in that case they would have to explain as to where all the energies of this universe had come from, because all those energies cannot simply come from nothing. However, the total energy being zero, this problem no longer bothers them. Although the total energy of the universe is always zero, still there are lots of energies in this universe, all originating from nothing in the form of positive and negative energies, thus keeping the total energy of the universe always zero. The same thing can be said about matter also. As the total matter of the universe is zero, so they say that all the matter of the universe can simply come from nothing, because zero does not have to come from anything. But what shall we have to say about space and time? Can nothing generate so much of space and time that we find in this universe? Or, was there some supernatural agent that had actually provided space and time to our universe? Or, would they say the same thing about space and time also that as the total space as well as the total time of the universe is indeed zero, so space and time can simply come from nothing? Was it then that space had actually originated from nothing in the form of positive space and negative space, thus keeping the total space of the universe always zero? Was it the same case for time also? Can it also be said about time that it has actually originated from nothing in the form of positive time and negative time, thus keeping the total time of the universe always zero? If there are negative space and negative time, then where are they? Are they in this universe? If they are not, then how come that so much of space and so much of time have simply come from nothing? Scientists believe that from nothing, nothing comes. The universe started with zero energy and zero matter, and its total energy and total matter always remain zero. Neither any extra energy nor any extra matter added to, or subtracted from, the initial zero value of them. So, from nothing, nothing has actually come. But if there is neither any negative space nor any negative time in our universe to counterbalance the positive space and the positive time respectively, then there is a real problem here. This is because here nothing has given rise to something really positive.
To remove this imbalance in the quantity of space and time, scientist Victor J Stenger has proposed in an article (The Other Side of Time, 2000) that there is another side of time, opposite to our time axis. As our universe goes on expanding from zero time to positive infinity, so in the other side of time there is another universe that goes on expanding from zero time to negative infinity. If in our universe space and time are considered to be positive space and positive time, then in the universe located in the other side of time space and time can be considered to be negative space and negative time, thus keeping the total space and the total time always zero. Two objections can be raised against this proposed solution. First of all, this can never be verified, and Stenger himself admitted that: “…this scenario cannot be proven, just presented as a possibility that provides a non-supernatural alternative to the theistic creation.” This is tantamount to saying something like this: we suffer lots of injustice in our earthly life. All this will be properly compensated for in our heavenly after-life. Even if it is true, it can never be verified, and therefore it will purely be an act of faith if we accept it as true and live accordingly. So, we cannot accept Stenger’s proposal as a viable solution here, because it will also be an act of faith. The second objection is that initially both energy and matter were zero when the universe originated from nothing and that the total energy and the total matter of the universe always remain zero in this very universe. We have not gone to the other side of time for seeking a solution to any possible imbalance that could have arisen in the totality of these two entities. So, why should we have to go to the other side of time for setting right the imbalance that is definitely there in case of space and time? Why cannot the total space and the total time of this universe always remain zero in this very universe itself? Perhaps there is some substance in this universe that helps keep the total space and the total time of the universe always zero. At least Einstein’s general theory of relativity suggests something like that. At one place Einstein has written about GTR: “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” If time and space and gravitation cannot have any separate existence from matter, then the total matter of the universe being always zero, the total time, the total space and the total gravitation of the universe should also always remain zero. Therefore we can say that there is definitely some substance in this universe due to the presence of which the total space and the total time of the universe always remain zero. And so, we need not have to go to the other side of time at all for setting right any imbalance or asymmetry that can be there either in case of space or in case of time. Due to the presence of this substance we can say that the universe starting from nothing with zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy will always contain zero total space, zero total time, zero total matter and zero total energy, thus not showing any asymmetry or imbalance anywhere.
To remove this imbalance in the quantity of space and time, scientist Victor J Stenger has proposed in an article (The Other Side of Time, 2000) that there is another side of time, opposite to our time axis. As our universe goes on expanding from zero time to positive infinity, so in the other side of time there is another universe that goes on expanding from zero time to negative infinity. If in our universe space and time are considered to be positive space and positive time, then in the universe located in the other side of time space and time can be considered to be negative space and negative time, thus keeping the total space and the total time always zero. Two objections can be raised against this proposed solution. First of all, this can never be verified, and Stenger himself admitted that: “…this scenario cannot be proven, just presented as a possibility that provides a non-supernatural alternative to the theistic creation.” This is tantamount to saying something like this: we suffer lots of injustice in our earthly life. All this will be properly compensated for in our heavenly after-life. Even if it is true, it can never be verified, and therefore it will purely be an act of faith if we accept it as true and live accordingly. So, we cannot accept Stenger’s proposal as a viable solution here, because it will also be an act of faith. The second objection is that initially both energy and matter were zero when the universe originated from nothing and that the total energy and the total matter of the universe always remain zero in this very universe. We have not gone to the other side of time for seeking a solution to any possible imbalance that could have arisen in the totality of these two entities. So, why should we have to go to the other side of time for setting right the imbalance that is definitely there in case of space and time? Why cannot the total space and the total time of this universe always remain zero in this very universe itself? Perhaps there is some substance in this universe that helps keep the total space and the total time of the universe always zero. At least Einstein’s general theory of relativity suggests something like that. At one place Einstein has written about GTR: “When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter.” If time and space and gravitation cannot have any separate existence from matter, then the total matter of the universe being always zero, the total time, the total space and the total gravitation of the universe should also always remain zero. Therefore we can say that there is definitely some substance in this universe due to the presence of which the total space and the total time of the universe always remain zero. And so, we need not have to go to the other side of time at all for setting right any imbalance or asymmetry that can be there either in case of space or in case of time. Due to the presence of this substance we can say that the universe starting from nothing with zero space, zero time, zero matter and zero energy will always contain zero total space, zero total time, zero total matter and zero total energy, thus not showing any asymmetry or imbalance anywhere.
But what is this substance? Whence has it originated? What are its properties? These are the questions that are to be answered by scientists only. As a layperson, I can say this much only: so long as scientists will fail to provide a suitable answer to these questions, science will remain incomplete. Only time will tell whether science will be able to offer a natural solution here or whether we will have to seek a supernatural solution for this. But one thing is certain: there is a real problem here, and Victor J Stenger was the only scientist who was well aware of this problem.
Originally Answered: How/when did everything begin?
I Know There Is a God OR Some Mysterious force that governs this universe and everything that surrounds reality. My life experiences A lot of events that explain them religion just clarifies it more that there is a god. God can be defined as the hope we get when we are surrounded by dark voids , he is the only light that governs around us,secure us, when evil surrounds us. If you Read the Four Holy Books(Torah,Bible,Quran,Zaboor{Arabic}) You will find that That God created this earth. You can Choose to believe it But study well because this is the topic that demands knowledge about facts and about faith.
Originally Answered: If everything had to have a beginning, then how did existence come in to being?
Nothingness must have existed before any universes did for a start. I think possibly two dimensions, one of nothingness and one with something might of collided or been pierced somehow and created the ingredients for our universe. After all our universe does contain matter yet also nothingness. Today I think it's possible that there are now many universes out side of which may still be other dimensions/another dimension of nothingness. Yet we could still ask ourselves then, where did the nothingness come from?
Originally Answered: Does the universe really come from nothing?
Since we are here, it is likely that it did come from nothing at some point. Some instability brought an end to the in the conditions required for nothing thus kicking off the reign of reality as we know it.
The only evidence for this is that we live in a something universe. It's an inference, not a theory.
The only evidence for this is that we live in a something universe. It's an inference, not a theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment