zero energy

[Athetotheist]

It's argued that a universe can come into being from absolute nothingness because a balance between positive and negative energy is maintained, making the universe's energy "zero" (I've argued elsewhere that the "zero energy" argument is flawed because net-zero energy doesn't mean no energy).

But let's assume for the sake of argument that the zero-energy argument is correct in meaning that there is no energy in the universe. Some materialists have said that they would be convinced of the existence of a creator if some evidence were woven into the fundamental makeup of the universe and could be discovered mathematically. What if the zero-energy equation, as it's interpreted by materialists, is that evidence?

If there is no energy, what's the universe made of? That question may seem simplistic, but it's the question we have to ask once we're painted into a zero-energy corner. Without energy there is nothing [materially] but nothingness, and if the zero-energy equation forces us to conclude that the universe consists of pure nothingness because zero energy leaves nothing but pure nothingness for the universe to consist of, then we're left with a non-physical universe since there's nothing physical to make it up (let's face it----when you rule out energy as something to comprise your universe, your remaining choices are severely limited). So if the mathematical way out of explaining why the energy of the universe exists is to show that its energy doesn't exist, doesn't that cause a bigger problem for materialism than it solves?

[William]

Are physicist actually arguing from an ex-nihilo universe?
No, they are not - at least not in the philosophical/theological sense of "creation from absolute nothing."

What physicists like Krauss actually argue:

When Krauss says "nothing is unstable" or "universes can appear from nothing," he defines "nothing" very specifically:

No space

No time

No matter

No radiation

But crucially, his "nothing" still contains:

The laws of physics (quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.)

The mathematical framework that governs potentiality

The quantum vacuum (or its potential)

The capacity for something to happen

This is not philosophical nothing - the absence of all existence, including laws, principles, and the very possibility of existence.

What Krauss himself acknowledges:

In the passage Difflugia quoted, Krauss writes:

"There, 'nothing' meant empty but preexisting space combined with fixed and well-known laws of physics. Now the requirement of space has been removed. But, remarkably, as we shall next discuss, even the laws of physics may not be necessary or required."

He's pushing the boundary, but even his most ambitious formulation still assumes something - a framework, a potentiality, a mathematical reality - within which universes can pop into existence.

The key distinction:

Physical ex nihilo = from no space, no time, no matter, but with laws/potentiality

Philosophical ex nihilo = from absolutely nothing - no laws, no potentiality, no framework, no "can"

Physicists argue for the first. Theologians and philosophers often mean the second. The conflation is where Athetotheist gets traction - and also where he gets stuck, because he can't decide which "nothing" he's defending.

My framework (Zero Ground) sidesteps this entirely:

ZG doesn't ask "from nothing or not?" It says: the Ground is eternal. The universe is its expression. There was never "nothing" because the Ground always is. The question shifts from "how did something come from nothing?" to "what is this something, and what is it doing?"

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #29]

The mystic says "Words fail" never "it escapes me". So, "no" - not the same thing to the mystic.

What gives you jurisdiction over the way every mystic defines the mysterious?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #30]

This is untrue at the quantum level for the definition you seem to be using for "simpler."

If the universe's energy is net-zero and not zero, what definition are you using for "nothing"?

Nothing and a particle-antiparticle pair both have the same total energy and same total momentum. Sometimes nothing turns into the particle-antiparticle pair. Sometimes the pair turns back into nothing.

So you're saying that sometimes no energy turns into energy and sometimes energy turns into no energy? Wouldn't that violate the 1st law of thermodynamics by creating energy and by destroying it? Does that physical law hold up or does it not?

Some cosmologists share your unease and posit extra layers underlying the reality that we can observe and measure, primarily because an unstable nothing seems to them like it ought to be wrong. The way you're presenting it right now, though, you're just making a circular argument by trying to define away nothingness.

Then kudos to those cosmologists for continuing to apply the scientific method by asking what causes the phenomenon they're observing.

I'm guessing that you have an intuitive sense that positive one energy plus negative one energy somehow doesn't conserve zero energy. If that's true, all I can say is that physicists have a different understanding of energy conservation than you do.

I'm not focusing on energy being conserved. I'm focusing on energy being present. You confirmed that there isn't "no energy" in the universe.

If absolute nothing produces a net-zero-energy universe which is nonetheless composed of energy, does that involve the creation of energy or does it not?

A few paragraphs above, you were arguing that nothing is really something.

I've argued that what's been called nothing is really something, but I have never argued that nothing is really something.

the "zero-point field" is just a description of how the instability of nothing manifests.

Going back to Krauss' comment that nothing will become something "if you wait long enough", how long should you have to wait in an environment in which an infinite length of nothingness has already passed at any given moment, meaning that at any given moment while waiting for nothingness to become unstable, it has remained stable for an infinite amount of time? If nothingness was ever going to be unstable, you'd think that it would become unstable instantly, meaning that there would never be nothingness for something to come from.

But, remarkably, as we shall next discuss, even the laws of physics may not be necessary or required.

it seems to me that Hindu and Taoist cosmologies got there first.

What are they bounded by? The boundaries are the point. You claimed that Krauss "hints at something exceeding his boundaries." I disagree. The math works. What religion offers anything even remotely comparable?

Here's a reply I posted in another discussion some time back:

Mathematics is purely abstract. It doesn't deal with substances, as does chemistry or with forces, as does physics. Mathematics deals only with counting, weighing and measuring. That's why 1+1=2 can refer to one and two of anything.

Therefore, if an abstract means of counting, weighing and measuring brings into existence forces which can be counted, weighed and measured----and I'm not saying that it can't----, that occurrence is by definition metaphysical.

I don't say that it can't happen because there is an example of what you seem to be describing. It appears in the philosophy of Taoism in the form of P'u, "The Uncarved Block" which holds within it all possible forms.

And if you take issue with the notion of a cosmic "intelligence", perhaps you prefer verse 40 of the Tao Te Ching:

Return is the movement of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao.
All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being.

Thus, "Mathematics is potentially inherent in an uncreated nothingness" and "The metaphysical is hardwired into nature" are equivalent statements.

[Difflugia]

This is untrue at the quantum level for the definition you seem to be using for "simpler."

If the universe's energy is net-zero and not zero, what definition are you using for "nothing"?

Informally, the closest to "absolute nothing" available within a particular context. If you want to discount the analogy of "nothing" within the universe and "nothing" apart from the universe, then you're simply claiming that we have no information from which to draw a conclusion about the origin of the universe. That's fine and logically consistent, but it cuts both ways.

So you're saying that sometimes no energy turns into energy and sometimes energy turns into no energy?

Yes.

Wouldn't that violate the 1st law of thermodynamics by creating energy and by destroying it?

Within a classical Newtonian or relativistic understanding of the laws of thermodynamics, yes. That's why quantum mechanics redefines it with a set of rules from which the classical formulation can be derived at the macro level, but still constrains what would otherwise be violations at the quantum level.

Does that physical law hold up or does it not?

At the quantum level, it doesn't in the way that it's usually expressed at the macro level. If I'm only allowed a yes or no, then no.

Some cosmologists share your unease and posit extra layers underlying the reality that we can observe and measure, primarily because an unstable nothing seems to them like it ought to be wrong. The way you're presenting it right now, though, you're just making a circular argument by trying to define away nothingness.

Then kudos to those cosmologists for continuing to apply the scientific method by asking what causes the phenomenon they're observing.

That's also what Krauss is doing, but he apparently doesn't get your kudos.

I'm not focusing on energy being conserved. I'm focusing on energy being present. You confirmed that there isn't "no energy" in the universe.

What I've confirmed is that positive one and negative one add to zero. I've also tried to agree to definitions, but then apply them uniformly to the overall discussion, but that seems to be a sticking point with you. I suspect that your argument is based on at least one equivocation.

If absolute nothing produces a net-zero-energy universe which is nonetheless composed of energy, does that involve the creation of energy or does it not?

And I think this is the first equivocation. The way the terms are used in the First Law of Thermodynamics, no. If you insist that it's yes and that it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, then somewhere you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting something.

The law of the conservation of energy is that the total energy of a system doesn't change. If the universe itself has a total energy of zero, then the creation of the universe hasn't violated the law of the conservation of energy.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is classically written something like this: ΔU = Q - W, where "U" is the total energy of the system, Q is the heat added to the system, and W is the work done on the system. In terms of the creation of the universe, no external heat was added and no work was done to the universe, therefore the equation holds. The total energy of the universe, zero, is equal to the sum of heat added, zero, and work done, zero.

I've argued that what's been called nothing is really something, but I have never argued that nothing is really something.

Then you're not using the words the same way Lawrence Krauss is. If you want to change the definitions he's using to argue against his claims, you'll have to reformulate his claims to match your definitions. If you're creative enough with your definitions, I'd bet you can make his claims sound silly, but you can't make them untrue.

Going back to Krauss' comment that nothing will become something "if you wait long enough", how long should you have to wait in an environment in which an infinite length of nothingness has already passed at any given moment, meaning that at any given moment while waiting for nothingness to become unstable, it has remained stable for an infinite amount of time? If nothingness was ever going to be unstable, you'd think that it would become unstable instantly, meaning that there would never be nothingness for something to come from.

I give up. How long?

I'm losing hope that your argument is even in good faith. If you remove time and space, such as the conditions "before" the universe, whatever "before" means external to a temporal reality, then the equations that matter are ones without a time component. Is your argument that language based on a temporal universe is insufficient to describe the beginning of that universe? Or that it is, but Krauss has described it wrong? What actually is your argument?

Try this: "Lawrence Krauss is wrong because..."

it seems to me that Hindu and Taoist cosmologies got there first.

Got where? A mathematically plausible reconstruction of the early universe? I rather doubt it. That's the same claim that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," is somehow equivalent to mathematical models of universal expansion following the Big Bang. You're making a huge category error and claiming it's meaningful. Even if you're trying to be honest, it's just a deepity.

Here's a reply I posted in another discussion some time back:

Mathematics is purely abstract. It doesn't deal with substances, as does chemistry or with forces, as does physics. Mathematics deals only with counting, weighing and measuring. That's why 1+1=2 can refer to one and two of anything.

Therefore, if an abstract means of counting, weighing and measuring brings into existence forces which can be counted, weighed and measured----and I'm not saying that it can't----, that occurrence is by definition metaphysical.

I don't say that it can't happen because there is an example of what you seem to be describing. It appears in the philosophy of Taoism in the form of P'u, "The Uncarved Block" which holds within it all possible forms.

And if you take issue with the notion of a cosmic "intelligence", perhaps you prefer verse 40 of the Tao Te Ching:

Return is the movement of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao.
All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being.

I prefer the next verse.

"If they didn't laugh, it wouldn't be the Tao."

Thus, "Mathematics is potentially inherent in an uncreated nothingness" and "The metaphysical is hardwired into nature" are equivalent statements.

That seems deep.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #34]

it seems to me that Hindu and Taoist cosmologies got there first.

Got where? A mathematically plausible reconstruction of the early universe? I rather doubt it.

"All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being."

I prefer the next verse.

"If they didn't laugh, it wouldn't be the Tao."

If the math shows that being is born of non-being, what is there to laugh at?

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #35]

If the math shows that being is born of non-being, what is there to laugh at?

I don't see that the math is showing us this. Can you define what you mean by "being"?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #36]

If the math shows that being is born of non-being, what is there to laugh at?

I don't see that the math is showing us this.

So you're saying that sometimes no energy turns into energy and sometimes energy turns into no energy?

Yes.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is classically written something like this: ΔU = Q - W, where "U" is the total energy of the system, Q is the heat added to the system, and W is the work done on the system. In terms of the creation of the universe, no external heat was added and no work was done to the universe, therefore the equation holds. The total energy of the universe, zero, is equal to the sum of heat added, zero, and work done, zero.

Can you define what you mean by "being"?

Lao Tzu's text indicates that "being" is in contrast with "non-being".

[William]

[Replying to William in post #36]

If the math shows that being is born of non-being, what is there to laugh at?

I don't see that the math is showing us this.

So you're saying that sometimes no energy turns into energy and sometimes energy turns into no energy?

Yes.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is classically written something like this: ΔU = Q - W, where "U" is the total energy of the system, Q is the heat added to the system, and W is the work done on the system. In terms of the creation of the universe, no external heat was added and no work was done to the universe, therefore the equation holds. The total energy of the universe, zero, is equal to the sum of heat added, zero, and work done, zero.

Can you define what you mean by "being"?

Lao Tzu's text indicates that "being" is in contrast with "non-being".

Can you explain that?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #38]

Lao Tzu's text indicates that "being" is in contrast with "non-being".

Can you explain that?

That which is not becomes what is.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #39]

Can you now explain how that which is not, becomes that which is?