Ask Ethan: Why is there something instead of nothing?
I wanna thank him for writing this…
Ethan Siegel is a Ph.D. astrophysicist and author of "Starts with a Bang!" He is a science communicator, who professes physics and astronomy at various colleges. He has won numerous awards for science writing since 2008 for his blog, including the award for best science blog by the Institute of Physics.
“And yet, there's always this nagging unanswerable question underlying each step we can answer: why is it this specific way, instead of all the other ways we could've imagined it? Here's as far as science has taken us.”
(First bout of fallacious thinking?
“Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim. “instead of all the other ways we could've imagined it”
Just because you can imagine it “other ways”? Doesn’t provide the “evidence “make it so.)
“Perhaps the most remarkable fact about the Universe, if you think about it on a truly fundamental level, is that it exists at all. And yet, not only does it exist, but there’s matter within it, which obeys the same rules everywhere and at all times, and assembles according to the physical laws (5x) governing reality to create, among other things: atomic nuclei, neutral atoms, molecules, stars and planets, galaxies, and a large-scale cosmic web. Not only that, but in at least one relatively unremarkable corner of this Universe, a planet arose some 4.5 billion years ago where life survived and thrived, eventually giving rise to an intelligent, self-aware species that can ask deep questions about the Universe they inhabit.”
“This is one of those questions, I’m sorry to say, that science not only doesn’t have a satisfactory answer for right now, but will probably never have one. Although there’s a lot we can say about this question, we face fundamental limitations by the very nature of the scientific enterprise. Here’s why.
(Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.)
“How did we get to be here?
“There’s an enormous difference between a “why” question, which science isn’t really well-equipped to answer, with a “how” question, which is the bread-and-butter of what science is good for. If we were to ask the question of why we’re all here, there isn’t a scientific way to approach this question: we can’t formulate a testable hypothesis and derive what sorts of things we can go out and measure to answer that. Even if we determine the underlying rules that reality follows, there’s a limit to what we can derive from them: we can derive physical consequences that stem from those rules and some set of initial conditions, but we cannot derive any sort of purpose behind those consequences using the tools of science.”
(Few things here: “there isn’t a scientific way to approach this question: we can’t formulate a testable hypothesis and derive what sorts of things we can go out and measure to answer that.”
So that’s also applies to the scientific approach for the multiverse does it?
“derive what sorts of things we can go out and measure”?
“Even if we determine the underlying rules that reality follows”
Where did the rules come from? They just created themselves, did they? Why haven’t they continued to do so then? Why are there not “more rules governing our reality” just arbitrarily showing up on the scene if they “create themselves.”
“we can derive physical consequences that stem from those rules and some set of initial conditions”
Again, How did those get there? Where did they come from? Design implies a designer.)
“but we cannot derive any sort of purpose behind those consequences using the tools of science”
Jonathan Edwards wrote in the 1700’s “the disposition to communicate himself, or diffuse his own FULLNESS, was what moved him to create the world” (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol 1, Banner of Truth, 2005, Chapter I, Section II). 1703–1758 was a pastor and theologian. thought by many to be the greatest theological mind that the New World has ever produced. His preaching, which helped spark the First Great Awakening, emphasized man’s sin, God’s judgment, God’s sovereignty, the necessity of personal conversion, and justification by faith.)
“The question of “how” we got to be here, on the other hand, is one that science can tell us literally everything about. Especially if we’ve already done the hard work to understand the laws of science, from the biological and geological and atmospheric evolution that’s occurred here on Earth to the chemical evolution that’s occurred through the differing environments of space and on Earth to the particle-based evolution that occurred inside stars and in the crucible of the Big Bang, we can put those pieces of the story together to understand precisely how this Universe gave rise to our Solar System, our planet, the origin of life, and after some 4-ish billion years, even a full-fledged human being.”
(Dear Ethan: Again
“the laws of science” Where did they come from?
“Biological, geological, atmospheric, chemical, and particle-based evolution” have not, do not, and will not ever create the information needed (as we will see) for life. And if it did? Why aren’t new life forms creating themselves? Nowhere, ever does any of that explain where the information needed for life came from, so, no that doesn’t not explain “the origin of life”
Genesis 2:7 “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth”. Subatomic soup you are walking around in, not dirt per se and? It’s where we will return to, “dust of the cosmos” eventually. The creator can create and give life from the subatomic realm we walk around in and don’t ever see/experience (much).
“Although that story — of how we came to be the way we are — still has a few gaps in it as far as definitive knowledge is concerned, these are gaps that are forever shrinking as we accumulate more and more knowledge about: the laws and rules that govern the Universe,
(They just decided to come on the scene all on their own did they?)
the past and present phenomena that have occurred here on Earth,
and the great variety of possible outcomes,
(Second bout of fallacious thinking, that’s assuming they were possible “the great variety of possible outcomes”. What if, there wasn’t any “great variety of possible outcomes”. What if this was the only possible outcome given the initial conditions we had? “There is no measurable, observable evidence of any “great variety of possible outcomes” None, zero. It is faulty logic to assume that because we have THIS outcome (realized), not “A” outcome (a possibility), then every conceivable combination we can think of has to exist. No, it simply doesn’t “have to” all the evidence we have points to “THIS” outcome not “every conceivable combination we can think of”. What if? This universe is the only conceivable outcome that could have possibly happened given:
“given similar starting conditions,”
These invented themselves? These just decided to come into existence all on their own? Where did they come from?
"that occur or could have occurred elsewhere in the cosmos."
(Theres no “observable, measurable evidence” (His words) of “similar starting conditions” that “could have occurred elsewhere in the cosmos”. None. Ethan? Dude? Can you formulate a testable hypothesis and derive what sorts of things you can go out and measure here? That’s assuming that they “could have occurred” without any evidence pointing to it what so ever. Just because you: “could've imagined it” (your words) doesn’t make it so.
The wisdom of this world is foolishness to god my brother. 1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Here’s what Ethan and others don’t want to admit, THIS universe is the only possible outcome we KNOW we have had, given the “starting conditions” that were present as the universe came into existence. They just simply refuse to admit it to themselves.)
“We still don’t know how, specifically, life originated from non-life, how many planets once existed and were either destroyed or ejected at some point in our Solar System’s past, or what predecessor stars existed that enabled the Sun to form with the properties it possessed at its birth.’
(“We still don’t know how, specifically, life originated from non-life” You never will because only life can create life. This is what all the “testable measurable observable” evidence we have says. (Again, your words)
“The knowns
This isn’t to undersell what we actually do know, which is perhaps the greatest achievement of the entire enterprise of human civilization. The fact that we have asked the Universe so many questions about itself and how it works have revealed an incredible amount of information.”
(Information is the key word there:
“the disposition to communicate himself, or diffuse his own FULLNESS, was what moved him to create the world” (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol 1, Banner of Truth, 2005, Chapter I, Section II)
“Biologically, we understand:
the inheritance of traits
and the role that mutation and selection plays,
leading to what we commonly know as Darwinian evolution.
(Does nothing to explain where life came from, just what happens once it’s on the scene)
We understand that Darwinian evolution is not a fundamental law, (So glad he gets that right BTW)
but rather that inheritance is driven by genetics,
which was further developed by Gregor Mendel.
(was a German-Czech biologist, meteorologist, mathematician, Augustinian friar and abbot of St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno (Brünn), Margraviate of Moravia. And he “established many of the rules of heredity”,)
The Big Bang theory It was first proposed in 1927 by Roman Catholic priest and physicist Georges Lemaître. Also BTW)
“And Mendelian genetics, while profoundly important, itself
is a consequence of the genetic code written down in every plant, animal, and fungus’s DNA, discovered by James Watson, Francis Crick, and Rosalind Franklin.
(Dear Ethan: Where did the code come from? Genetic code is information, in every plant, animal and fungus, every living thing has “genetic code”. Information doesn’t create itself, it does not “Evolve” its always the result of a brain, an intellect, trying to tell you something , this is what all the testable, measurable and observable evidence says and its really simple what that brain that created all that genetic code in every living thing that’s ever lived is telling you, I am real, I am here…Or? Put another way? Your creator has shown you “the disposition to communicate himself” to you.)
“But DNA is simply a molecule: assembled and synthesized together out of atoms through a series of chemical (and biochemical) reactions. And chemistry is just a consequence of atoms and molecules (and ions) reacting together in an environment with a temperature or energy gradient: a complex process, sure, but one whose interactions and reactions can be understood at a fundamental level.’
(Wrong! It’s not simply “a molecule” but one that contains the genetic code (information) that that every “plant, animal, and fungus’s” that has ever lived has possessed. It makes it quite a bit different from being “simply a molecule”.)
“All told, we can trace back the astrophysical origin of every element found in the periodic table using modern science.”
(Just wanna point out as Stepen C Meyer mentions in his book the return of the god hypothesis, that modern science was developed by Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes , Maxwell, Babbage…and they went to nature looking for evidence of God in the laws of nature that govern it’s existence. These guys wouldn’t be where they are today if those guys hadn’t laid the ground work for them.
Design is evidence of a designer. Picture)
“Going back to the beginning
In fact, this is one of the most important properties of science overall: the notion that, if you understand a physical system well enough, then simply by providing
a set of initial conditions for that system
plus the physical laws that govern it,
(that’s two or three cases of ‘initial conditions” BTW. Where did the initial conditions and the physical laws of nature that govern it come from?)
“then we’ll be able to calculate that system’s properties, or at worst, a probabilistic set of outcomes for that system’s properties, at any arbitrary moment as far into the future as we like. This, in many ways, is the heart of what science is: “our best and most accurate models of reality, and an attempt to account for all observable and measurable phenomena in the process.”
(Dear Ethan:
Why is this standard for what the heart of science is:
“our best and most accurate models of reality, and an attempt to account for all observable and measurable phenomena in the process.”
Why is that same standard specifically NOT applied to the concept of the multiverse? Particularly, observable and measurable?)
“Moreover, we can learn what “seeds” of structure — or initial conditions — needed to be in place to give rise to what we observe at later times.”
(How many times we goanna hear about initial conditions and not address how they might have gotten there to start with? And? I’ll throw in “the laws of nature, science etc.”?)
“Unfortunately, we can only access the information contained inside our cosmic horizon, which is all part of the same fraction of one region where inflation ended some 13.8 billion years ago.’
(Maybe? “we can only access the information contained inside our cosmic horizon” ios by design? Maybe? Theres only information there because your creator is telling you he is real.
Ecc 3:11 etc…
Psalm 19:1 “the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork.”)
“we know that, after the primordial soup from the hot Big Bang cooled off, we were left with a slight overabundance of matter compared to antimatter. It’s as though, during the earliest phases, for every 500 million antiquarks that were present, there were 500 million and one quarks that were present. For every 1.5 billion positrons that were present, there were 1.5 billion and one electrons that were present. And while we know some general rules that allow us to create a matter-antimatter asymmetry from an initially symmetric state, we have yet to unpack precisely how our Universe generated the matter-antimatter asymmetry that gave rise to our existence.”
(“while we know some general rules that allow us to create a matter-antimatter asymmetry from an initially symmetric state”
The universe shoulnt have had a million and one pieces of matter for every million pieces of antimatter, it should have been equal (canceled themselves out) yet they aren’t. Why?
“we have yet to unpack precisely how our Universe generated the matter-antimatter asymmetry that gave rise to our existence”
Let me clue you in, it wasn’t the universe that generated the matter-antimatter asymmetry.
Theism “belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.”
There is more observable, measurable evidence of a theistic entity acting upon his creation, than there is evidence of a multiverse. You just listed three yourself. Somehow information got in the DNA molecule, 10 billion years after the universe formation with the highest temps we know about and traveled at the speed of light (close to it anyway) and it didn’t degrade all of that goes against information theory which says information degrades over time and distance and environmental extremes. It speaks for itself, it really does.
“we have yet to unpack precisely how our Universe generated the matter-antimatter asymmetry that gave rise to our existence.
Dear Ethan: it might have something to do with the design (implies a designer) of those initial conditions you keep mentioning 😊. Maybe? Perhaps? Just sayin yo…)
“We don’t know what many of the specifics of cosmic inflation were, or how, precisely, it came to an end to create the hot Big Bang.”
(There are two main schools of thought here: 1 It was “programmed that way” Awesome, what did the programming? 2 It was set up on a “time delay” type mechanism to go off when certain conditions were right. Awesome, what entity decided that? Im goanna go with the same entity that wrote all the genetic code for every plant animal and fungus that ever lived, hey my position has as much “observable and measurable” evidence as the multiverse hypothesis, so why not?)
“We don’t know how the fundamental constants (about 30) came to possess the values that they have, and how we came to have the four fundamental forces (and, seemingly, no others) within our Universe.”
(Dear Ethan: Dude you keep talking about initial conditions but not explaining how they got there. They might just have had something to do with the values that the fundamental constants have and and how we came to have the four fundamental forces (and, seemingly, no others) within our Universe.”
“The bigger questions
It leads to a question that almost everyone — physicists and non-physicists alike — has asked themselves at some point or other: did things have to turn out this way, or could they have been different?”
(The fact that is testable observable and measurable is this: Things turned out like they did, not any other way that we know of that can be tested measured and observed. That’s what certain astrophysicist just do not like. Where is there any evidence of any ‘different laws of physics that may have existed in other universes?” You don’t have any, all we know is THIS universe came into existence in the manner that it did (Realized, materialized) not “A” universe possibly coming into existence (One possibility of many), this one. This “it could have turned out different” ignores what you said “the heart of what science is” testable measurable and observable not “what you want/wish it to be”, “it is what it is”.)
“If you were to run the clock all the way back to the earliest state we can say something physically sensible about, the inflationary state with the same initial conditions ours possessed, would you get the same Universe with the same:
fundamental constants,
laws of physics,
hot Big Bang,
sets of species of particles and antiparticles,
matter/antimatter asymmetry,
and dark matter and dark energy
(Dear Ethan: How many times you goanna mention “initial conditions”? The point isn’t would you get the same universe or not with the same initial conditions, the point is, using your words for defining the heart of science: “our best and most accurate models of reality” is: this is what we got! Missing the point like an idiot misses the punch line much?)
“Visualization of a quantum field theory calculation showing virtual particles in the quantum vacuum. Even in empty space, this vacuum energy is non-zero, but without specific boundary conditions, individual particle properties will not be constrained.”
(Few things: 1) Empty space isn’t “Nothing” its still space, its just empty. Just like a parking lot without any cars in it is still a parking lot. It doesn’t magically turn into nothing just because no cars are in it. It’s still “something” a parking lot, Likewise with space. It’s still space (something) even if its empty! So how did “the empty space” get there? 2) Where did the specific boundary conditions come from? I’ll give you a big hint, from the same place that the initial conditions and the four fundamental laws that govern every interaction in the universe and all the genetic code for every plant animal and fungus that has ever existed and matter asymmetry and came from. How about that? Easy peasy.)
“it’s irresponsible to equate “empty space” with the philosophical concept of “nothingness.” (100% Agreed Gerald Schroader “believe in god in 5 minutes, you tube look it up.)
“But what about the fundamental constants? What of the laws of physics themselves? What about the number of forces, the types of particles and antiparticles that are allowed to exist, and the properties and existence of poorly-understood entities like dark matter and dark energy?
The truth is: we don’t know.”
(100% wrong. YOU don’t know, others of us have known for 1000’s of years what the source of everything is.
Colossians 1:16-17 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.)
“You might be able to imagine, in your mind, a state of pure nothingness (Or a Multiverse) that’s even more “nothing-like” than this, but that doesn’t represent anything physically real.”
(Neither does the multiverse, again with the two different sets of standards that science isn’t supposed to have.)
As we were saying in the beginning:
“And yet, there's always this nagging unanswerable question underlying each step we can answer: why is it this specific way, instead of all the other ways we could've imagined it? Here's as far as science has taken us. ”Just because you can imagine it “other ways”? Doesn’t make it so. “You might be able to imagine, in your mind”, anything, “but that doesn’t represent anything physically real.”)
“The best we can say — assuming that we’re sticking to science and not moving into the realm of theology, philosophy, or pure imagination — is that the reason there’s something rather than nothing is that “nothing” cannot exist compatibly within our Universe.”
(Exactly. “Nothing” only exists, outside our universe. Our universe was created with the express purpose of having matter in it, and by extention us since we are made of matter. It’s the way it was designed. Matter is primary. This is testable measurable and observable way more so than any multiverse hypothesis.
How about those initial conditions yo? Think that might have had something to do with that? Your creator designed it for you to enjoy it with him.)
“Of course, that leads back to the original question: why? And for that, dissatisfying though it is, science has no answer. The Universe is the way it is, (and as far as being measurable and observable? It’s the only one we know exist.) and though we strive to understand it as best we can,
we are compelled to be humble before the great cosmic unknown.
(Again, 100% wrong, and just call “the great cosmic unknown” what it so obviously is and what all the measurable and observable evidence point to: A theistic entity acting on his creation. Anything but God with these guys. Being humble before it isn’t enough, it created the universe and gave you life, it deserves Worship!)
“The only advice I can give you is this: beware of anyone who claims to “know” the unknown. They may or may not be fooling themselves, but you certainly shouldn’t allow them to fool you.”
(“beware of anyone who claims to “know” the unknown”
Dear Ethan: Like what? That life and consciousness came from nonliving things without one centile of evidence to support that? Is that the “beware of anyone who claims to “know” the unknown.” That you are speaking of? Or that “all the other ways you could have imagined it” being created is logically valid without any evidence to support it?
People? Let me tell ya this, “They may or may not be fooling themselves, but you certainly shouldn’t allow them to fool you”
“you can fool some people sometimes
But you can’t fool all the people all the time
So now you see the light
Watcha goanna do?
Stand up for your rights.”
Another piece of advice I would like to give you is this:
Be ware of individuals who say: “the heart of science is our best and most accurate models of reality, and an attempt to account for all observable and measurable phenomena in the process.”
And then try and tell you the concept of the multiverse is scientific even though its not observable or measurable. They are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. There is one set of standards for what they don’t wanna believe and another set of standards for what they do wanna believe, and those are the types of people I would be warry of.
Now it’s personal. I know this guy pays attention to what I write and present, so
DEAR ETHAN:
How is that possible? That I know that? Without any one having ever told me? Without any “evidence”? To what power would you attribute the fact that I know you pay attention to what I write and present?
I’ll give you another one, How could 2 people know over 11 years ago as soon as their eyes met that they WOULD be together someday? Not might, WOULD and then it plays out just like that? Over 11 years later? How is that possible? I’ll give you a big hint, it’s the same power that created the initial conditions, physical constants, and four fundamental laws of nature that govern every interaction in our “measurable, and observable model of reality.” And is responsible for matter antimatter asymmetry as well.
Another thing, when somebody accurately predicts numerous things across various areas of academic endeavor? Over the course of 10+ years? With no formal training in those fields of academic endeavor? And gets more things correct than the so-called experts in their respective fields across the same time span? The same entity mentioned above is using them to tell others what they know about the unknown. I got an ancient text and millions of changed lives to support my faith in what I believe in, what do you got?
“The works of the Creator, ever present to our senses, give a living and perpetual testimony of his power and goodness far surpassing any evidence transmitted through human testimony.”- Charles Babbage.
The more you know about your world? In particular the subatomic one and cosmic superstructures? The more you can only reach one conclusion. 😊.
Science doesn’t demand 100% proof. It goes with overwhelming evidence favoring one option over all the others.
Why do you insist on holding people of my faith to a higher standard than you hold the adherents of yours to? When we so obviously have more “testable, observable, measurable,” evidence for ours than you do for yours?
I gotta table. Stop by sometime.
I honestly like you, I really do BTW.
