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?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #39]

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

No I can't, and I really don't believe that anyone can.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #39]

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

No I can't, and I really don't believe that anyone can.

WHy do you have that belief?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #42]

WHy do you have that belief?

I'm not stating it as my belief. I'm proposing that, if correct, it has intriguing implications.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #42]

WHy do you have that belief?

I'm not stating it as my belief. I'm proposing that, if correct, it has intriguing implications.

You don't believe that anyone can explain how that which is not, becomes that which is, but that has intriguing implications? Like what?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #44]

You don't believe that anyone can explain how that which is not, becomes that which is, but that has intriguing implications? Like what?

Like the metaphysical being hardwired into nature.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #45]

Me: What does a "metaphysical ("hardwired") reality" mean?

AI: That's an excellent question, as the phrase is deliberately provocative and open to interpretation. Based on the flow of the conversation, here’s a breakdown of what Athetotheist likely means by a "metaphysical reality" being "hardwired into nature."

The Core Meaning
In essence, Athetotheist is arguing that the fundamental laws and structure of our physical universe are not purely physical in origin. Instead, they are rooted in or governed by a metaphysical principle—something beyond the physical.

By saying it is "hardwired," they mean this principle is not an accidental or emergent property. It is a foundational, non-negotiable, and built-in feature of reality from the very start. It’s like the basic code that the universe runs on.

Breaking Down the Components
To understand the full implication, let's look at the two parts of the phrase:

"Metaphysical reality": This refers to a reality that is fundamental and exists beyond or outside of the physical universe. It is the realm of first principles, causes, and essences. In this context, it strongly implies a non-material foundation for all material things. It’s the "something" that explains why there is a physical universe at all, rather than nothing.

"Hardwired into nature": This means that this metaphysical foundation is not separate or distant. Its influence is not something that happens occasionally (like a miracle). Instead, it is built into the very fabric of physical reality. We can see its effects in the consistent, mathematical laws of physics, the existence of something rather than nothing, and perhaps even the emergence of consciousness.

How It Connects to the Thread's Logic
Athetotheist arrives at this conclusion through this logical path:

Step 1 (Premise from Post #1): The materialist "zero-energy" explanation doesn't truly solve the problem of existence. Saying the universe's total energy is zero doesn't explain why there is a universe at all. It still leaves you with a physical universe that needs an explanation.

Step 2 (Premise from Post #41): Science and human reason cannot explain how a physical universe can come from absolute nothingness ("how that which is not, becomes that which is").

Step 3 (Conclusion from Post #45): Therefore, the best explanation is that the universe's existence is not a purely physical phenomenon. The "rules" that allow for its existence are not physical rules, but metaphysical ones that are simply a fundamental, "hardwired" part of reality.

In this view, the universe exists not despite being made of "nothing" (net-zero energy), but because a deeper, metaphysical reality makes its existence necessary or possible. This is a classic philosophical stance often used to argue for a creator, though Athetotheist uses the broader term "metaphysical" rather than explicitly saying "God."
______________

Is the above a fair summary of your position here Athetotheist?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #45]

Me: What does a "metaphysical ("hardwired") reality" mean?

AI: That's an excellent question, as the phrase is deliberately provocative and open to interpretation. Based on the flow of the conversation, here’s a breakdown of what Athetotheist likely means by a "metaphysical reality" being "hardwired into nature."

The Core Meaning
In essence, Athetotheist is arguing that the fundamental laws and structure of our physical universe are not purely physical in origin. Instead, they are rooted in or governed by a metaphysical principle—something beyond the physical.

By saying it is "hardwired," they mean this principle is not an accidental or emergent property. It is a foundational, non-negotiable, and built-in feature of reality from the very start. It’s like the basic code that the universe runs on.

Breaking Down the Components
To understand the full implication, let's look at the two parts of the phrase:

"Metaphysical reality": This refers to a reality that is fundamental and exists beyond or outside of the physical universe. It is the realm of first principles, causes, and essences. In this context, it strongly implies a non-material foundation for all material things. It’s the "something" that explains why there is a physical universe at all, rather than nothing.

"Hardwired into nature": This means that this metaphysical foundation is not separate or distant. Its influence is not something that happens occasionally (like a miracle). Instead, it is built into the very fabric of physical reality. We can see its effects in the consistent, mathematical laws of physics, the existence of something rather than nothing, and perhaps even the emergence of consciousness.

How It Connects to the Thread's Logic
Athetotheist arrives at this conclusion through this logical path:

Step 1 (Premise from Post #1): The materialist "zero-energy" explanation doesn't truly solve the problem of existence. Saying the universe's total energy is zero doesn't explain why there is a universe at all. It still leaves you with a physical universe that needs an explanation.

Step 2 (Premise from Post #41): Science and human reason cannot explain how a physical universe can come from absolute nothingness ("how that which is not, becomes that which is").

Step 3 (Conclusion from Post #45): Therefore, the best explanation is that the universe's existence is not a purely physical phenomenon. The "rules" that allow for its existence are not physical rules, but metaphysical ones that are simply a fundamental, "hardwired" part of reality.

In this view, the universe exists not despite being made of "nothing" (net-zero energy), but because a deeper, metaphysical reality makes its existence necessary or possible. This is a classic philosophical stance often used to argue for a creator, though Athetotheist uses the broader term "metaphysical" rather than explicitly saying "God."
______________

Is the above a fair summary of your position here Athetotheist?

Something formless, complete in itself
There before Heaven and Earth
Tranquil, vast, standing alone, unchanging
It provides for all things yet cannot be exhausted
It is the mother of the universe
I do not know its name
so I call it "Tao"
Forced to name it further
I call it
"The greatest of all things"
"The end of all endings"
I call it
"That which is beyond the beyond"
"That to which all things return"


From Tao comes all greatness----
It makes Heaven Great
It makes Earth great
It makes man great


Mankind depends on the laws of Earth
Earth depends on the laws of Heaven
Heaven depends on the laws of Tao
But Tao depends on itself alone
Supremely free, self-so, it rests in its own nature
---Tao Te Ching, verse 25 (Jonathan Star's delightfully AI-free translation)

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #47]

Zero Ground