Why would God be interested in free lunches?

[QED]

Most of us are familiar with the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and physics backs this up with the notion of conserved properties. The best known of these is probably energy which most schoolkids will tell us "can neither be created nor destroyed". Other example of conserved properties are electric charge and angular momentum. This jives with the idea of a provident God -- only he who has the power to break these universal rules and inject energy, charge and momentum into the unfolding universe. And what a lot of this we might imagine there to be!

But actually there isn't. All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole. The total mass-energy has a net sum indistinguishable from zero (when the negative contribution of gravitational potential energy is accounted for) and any imbalance in the numbers of electrons and protons would have a dramatic affect on structures of cosmic scale as the electric force is so much stronger than the force of gravity holding these structures together. If there was any net angular momentum to the universe then it would have shown as an increase in the microwave background radiation in the direction of its rotation axis. This radiation has now been measured to be the same in every direction to on part in a hundred thousand.

So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal? It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.

[Grumpy]

QED

Kind of reminds you of the quantum realm. Virtual particles(protons/antiprotons, electron/positron, etc.) of all descriptions pop into and out of existence as pairs, creating a seething sea of particles whose net energy sum is zero.

As energy flux increases, the mass and frequency of heavier particles increases.

Imagine a beginning state(from what cause, we do not know and may never know) of quantum sized "space" where all of the energy of the universe is concentrated in a near "zero" size. What kind of "particle" could "inflate" out of that???

Why, the universe, of course!!!

Are we part of a universe/antiuniverse pair? Good question, but the only answer we have is "We don't know, but we're looking into it."

If you(or other theists)believe that a deity said "Let there be light!!!" and the Big Bang(as described above)occured, with the physical properties such that stars, planets, galaxies, etc could exist, and, given the right circumstances, life could develope and evolve, so that we, as star dust and thus a part of the universe, can look out upon that universe and, slowly, begin to understand that universe, well I, as a scientist, have no method, nor any reason to disprove that belief. You could be right.

Grumpy

[QED]

It is all very reminiscent of the virtual pairs isn't it! I'm just trying to see this from both sides of the theist/atheist divide though. I think I missed out an important word from my question though...

So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal? It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something deeper about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.

[harvey1]

All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole.

It seems to me that the conservation laws do apply to the universe as a whole. That is, the total amount of positive and negative energy should equal to approximately zero.

The total mass-energy has a net sum indistinguishable from zero (when the negative contribution of gravitational potential energy is accounted for) and any imbalance in the numbers of electrons and protons would have a dramatic affect on structures of cosmic scale as the electric force is so much stronger than the force of gravity holding these structures together. If there was any net angular momentum to the universe then it would have shown as an increase in the microwave background radiation in the direction of its rotation axis. This radiation has now been measured to be the same in every direction to on part in a hundred thousand.

Right, so isn't that what you would expect of a Creator that created something from nothing?

So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal?

But, why wouldn't God be frugal? God exists because of conservation principles that apply in general. We don't live in a magical reality, but a reality where things happen for a reason. Even God's decisions are always seen to be the case because there is a reason behind those decisions.

It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.

Well, I think in terms of the Judeo-Christian tradition of God creating the world ex nihilo this is the world that we ought to expect. Either God created the world out of divine imagination (i.e., absolute idealism), or mattter-energy has always co-existed with God, or God uses creative accounting. The first possibility is not a Christian view since God is seen as separate from a sinful world. The second is also problematic for Christians since God is seen as the creator of the material universe, and philosophically God is a dangling entity whose causal role is very mysterious. The third option is perfectly consistent with Christian views since God creates by dividing night from day, land from water, and ultimately something from nothing.

[QED]

All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole.

It seems to me that the conservation laws do apply to the universe as a whole. That is, the total amount of positive and negative energy should equal to approximately zero.

Thanks for pointing that out Harvey. What I was trying to get over was that it's our local experiences of non-zero sums that leads us to the wrong conclusion about there being no such thing as a free lunch. From a global perspective the view is very different with everything summing to zero.

Right, so isn't that what you would expect of a Creator that created something from nothing?

No, if the sum total of creation comes to zero then it strikes me as a very odd sort of creation. Sure, locally we see plenty of stuff and think that God has had a blast on an unlimited budget - that seems right somehow. but when the proper accounting is in, creation looks more like a rearrangement of nothing.

But, why wouldn't God be frugal? God exists because of conservation principles that apply in general. We don't live in a magical reality, but a reality where things happen for a reason. Even God's decisions are always seen to be the case because there is a reason behind those decisions.

God exists because of conservation of causality is what you seem to be saying? If so I think I might be in need a little more help in understanding this one.

Well, I think in terms of the Judeo-Christian tradition of God creating the world ex nihilo this is the world that we ought to expect. Either God created the world out of divine imagination (i.e., absolute idealism), or mattter-energy has always co-existed with God, or God uses creative accounting. The first possibility is not a Christian view since God is seen as separate from a sinful world. The second is also problematic for Christians since God is seen as the creator of the material universe, and philosophically God is a dangling entity whose causal role is very mysterious. The third option is perfectly consistent with Christian views since God creates by dividing night from day, land from water, and ultimately something from nothing.

But the focus of my thoughts here is not on the baseline from which creation was implemented, but the subsequent "weight" of that creation. Tradition has it that all the evident bulk of the universe is testimony to God's supreme powers. Yet it all amounts to nothing when we view it as a whole.

[harvey1]

From a global perspective the view is very different with everything summing to zero.

Just to temper this with caution, this is a hypothesis not a stated fact of science, right?

Right, so isn't that what you would expect of a Creator that created something from nothing?

No, if the sum total of creation comes to zero then it strikes me as a very odd sort of creation. Sure, locally we see plenty of stuff and think that God has had a blast on an unlimited budget - that seems right somehow. but when the proper accounting is in, creation looks more like a rearrangement of nothing.

I guess I'm trying to figure out how you think "stuff out of nothing" can exist in a rational world. If God were to create stuff out of nothing as a magic act, then I can see your point. But, if we reject magic act theism (which I think we should given the fact that there's evil in the world and God must succumb to non-magical solutions), then magic is not a reasonable alternative for a creator. That leaves only absolute idealism, eternal matter co-existing with God, or cancellation to nothing as the only viable alternatives for creation. The latter to me seems like the only option for a Christian type of God.

God exists because of conservation of causality is what you seem to be saying? If so I think I might be in need a little more help in understanding this one.

Well, in my view God exists because any conceivable world entails God's existence--even a world with nothing at all. Since there is no conceivable reality where God does not exist, it is a fact that God exists. However, if conservation principles of logic are not obeyed (i.e., a magical world), then we'd have violations of identity, implication, satisfaction, conjunction, etc.. Yet, if you had violations of these concepts then the violation itself would involve these concepts at a higher precedence level of their occurrence (e.g., reality would still be identical with reality, the violation would satisfy some inequality, there would still exist an implication for a violation, etc.). So, I don't see any room for violations of these logical conservative principles even though God's existence is dependent on versus caused by them. (I don't say caused because that suggests that counterfactually we could have had these principles without God, but that's not possible either. For example, causation is not caused by causation, causation exists because in any conceivable reality it exists therefore causation cannot but exist.)

But the focus of my thoughts here is not on the baseline from which creation was implemented, but the subsequent "weight" of that creation. Tradition has it that all the evident bulk of the universe is testimony to God's supreme powers. Yet it all amounts to nothing when we view it as a whole.

But, this strikes me as a minor theme in Christianity. Adam was nothing but dust... We brought nothing into this world, and we carry nothing out... The nations are as nothing to God... Paul although the chiefest apostle is nothing... God regards all the people of earth as nothing...

I agree that the world is something in Christianity, but it is also something in physics too. The "nothing" being spoke about is a summation. I don't think this principle is contrary to the Judeo-Christian perspective. For example:

By his hand the north is stretched out in space, and the earth is hanging on nothing; (Job 26:7)

If the universe hangs on nothing (i.e., ultimately this is true), I think it is entirely consistent with the Christian perspective of creation.

[QED]

From a global perspective the view is very different with everything summing to zero.

Just to temper this with caution, this is a hypothesis not a stated fact of science, right?

As I understand it it's drawn directly from observation e.g. investigations into background microwave anisotropy and the apparent close proximity of the universe to a critical density.

I guess I'm trying to figure out how you think "stuff out of nothing" can exist in a rational world. If God were to create stuff out of nothing as a magic act, then I can see your point. But, if we reject magic act theism (which I think we should given the fact that there's evil in the world and God must succumb to non-magical solutions), then magic is not a reasonable alternative for a creator. That leaves only absolute idealism, eternal matter co-existing with God, or cancellation to nothing as the only viable alternatives for creation. The latter to me seems like the only option for a Christian type of God.

Yet philosophers of a theistic persuasion have traditionally shunned the concept of nothing (I'm working through John Barrow's book of nothing at the moment if you hadn't guessed!) ...to the extent of excluding zero from many early counting systems.

Well, in my view God exists because any conceivable world entails God's existence--even a world with nothing at all. Since there is no conceivable reality where God does not exist, it is a fact that God exists.

I can only ever understand this in terms of it being a definition, not as a logical inference. However, we've devoted plenty of other topics to your views on this, which is why I wanted to have a think about the "weight" of Gods supposed creation.

But, this strikes me as a minor theme in Christianity. Adam was nothing but dust... We brought nothing into this world, and we carry nothing out... The nations are as nothing to God... Paul although the chiefest apostle is nothing... God regards all the people of earth as nothing...

I agree that the world is something in Christianity, but it is also something in physics too. The "nothing" being spoke about is a summation. I don't think this principle is contrary to the Judeo-Christian perspective. For example:

By his hand the north is stretched out in space, and the earth is hanging on nothing; (Job 26:7)

If the universe hangs on nothing (i.e., ultimately this is true), I think it is entirely consistent with the Christian perspective of creation.

Perhaps it is. It would be interesting to hear from others whether or not it comes as a surprise that all of creation might be considered to have been put together on an infinitesimally small budget.

[wuntext]

I guess I'm trying to figure out how you think "stuff out of nothing" can exist in a rational world.

Easy Harvey! Read some of the work by Stenger at Colorado University, particularly his model that describes a non-supernatural beginning of the universe from nothing. A beginning that doesn't conflict with the laws of physics and comes complete with mathematical equations.
You can download the math as a PDF file.

[Grumpy]

wuntext

Easy Harvey! Read some of the work by Stenger at Colorado University, particularly his model that describes a non-supernatural beginning of the universe from nothing. A beginning that doesn't conflict with the laws of physics and comes complete with mathematical equations.
You can download the math as a PDF file.

You are assumeing that Harvey needs real scientific evidence to reach his conclusions. Harvey don't need no stinking scientific evidence, he thinks he can prove something using nothing but philosophical sophistry. Whole threads have been wasted trying to disabuse him of this ridiculous idea. Now, when confronted by the facts he claims his feelings were hurt by the questioner and goes off in a huff.

Just trying to save you some time and effort.

Grumpy

[QED]

Grumpy please don't slide into attacks on peoples character. If we think that Harvey's using a poor argument, let's point out it's weaknesses as we see them.

wuntext I think this might be the document you mentioned:A Scenario for a Natural Origin of Our Universe Using a Mathematical Model Based on Established Physics and Cosmology

What this example illustrates is that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "nothing" is as simple as it gets, we would not expect it to be very stable. This is consistent with the estimate given above that a universe is about twice as likely to be found in the physical state than the unphysical state we are identifying with nothing. The unphysical state undergoes a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition nothingto-something is a natural one, not requiring any agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that "nothing" is unstable."

In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural intervention—not a full one. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God.

That's just the sort of deeper reason why the universe is "a free lunch" that I was anticipating. Unfortunately Harvey's argument always seems to take up a position one rung higher on the ladder placing all propositions such as this subject to some sort of mind to make them valid. I'm unable to make any sense of this particular argument. I hope you can do better than me.