this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
62 points (80.4% liked)
Asklemmy
48161 readers
594 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You cannot have a painting without an artist. A sculpture without a sculpture. A tool will never use itself, it takes a user.
Imagine a blank and static universe. Someone had to add or move something to start the initial reaction even if they never play a part in the events after.
In some sense there is a creator. I just don't know in what capacity.
If you zoom out on the universe it's almost pure noise. Does that resemble what you'd expect from a designer? I guess it could be designed, but there's also no reason to indicate that if pure randomness is also expect to create the same things.
I am unsure of the capacity of a designer, constructor, what label you want to call an input. To have noise there must be an initial force to create it regardless of its structure, randomness, pattern, form. A big bang, literally anything we may never know. But if the universe was static and blank with no energy or anything just a black sand box. There would be no noise until a reaction happened.
I have never seen something come from nothing. I don't think anyone has ever or this question wouldn't have been asked or even be in our consciousness.
Well, particle and anti-particle pairs come into existence from nothing all the time actually. They typically annihilate though.
But they don't come into existence without an outside force. Those are first and second parties reacting. Who's the 3rd, 4th, 5th, END/START? Edit: Who spurs them into existence? Even if these pairs form and the sum is zero once the +1 and - 1 clash and the game zero sums. Who started or what started the spark something cannot come from nothing, this just means science must not have discovered the root cause of your equation. That is/was my only point. If things in the beginning were static, no movement, no input or output, someone/something adding an object, or kick off to start all of the events after whether they were involved or not. Just speaking on the OPs creator terms and not digressing into free will vs destiny.
No, they happen in relation to other things happening, but nothing creates them, especially not a someone. They just pop into existence. Why is that so hard to believe? Is it any less believable than needing some supernatural force to cause it? What created them? That wouldn't answer any questions anyway, so why would that be more believable.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/something-from-nothing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
If things in the beginning were static, no movement, no input or output...
Things weren't static. They just weren't in general. Before the universe started and space-time came into existence, there was no space or time. There is no before, and there's no where to be static. At some point it just existed, not at any time, since time didn't exist. It's hard, or rather impossible, to really hold the concept in your mind because we can't imagine a timelessness, but that seems to be the case.
Those were wild reads, not only that but further study of the entire subject. I spent the last day combing the internet and it is very heavy stuff.
I see and understand the process from nothing to something which I didn't previously have using matter and anti matter alongside other energy. Using quantum energy and all it entails given current science. Allowing different particles and matter to seemingly pop in and out is interesting and has came a long way since I last got educated. Its constant.
That being said nothing science offers yet, gives an answer to my/or OPs creator question. Because regardless of theory and concepts and their are a ton! Science is all based on some form of pre existing structure, law, and or potential, and never absolutely nothing. We lack the models, proof, testing capabilities. The biggest models are string theory, and loop quantum gravity. Inside of the there are many concepts zero point energy, Tegmark, Loop Bounce, Vilenkin, Holographic origin, and on and on currently being evaluated.
That leaves us currently having no truth to your view or mine, a stalemate for now. Without a new paradigm it's possibly unknowable.
Yeah, no matter what there's no possible way to ever know how the universe came into existence. Since there is no time before it existed, nothing we can figure out really matters. It just exists for some reason.
That said, the creator solution doesn't make sense to me. Its supposed to solve the question of how something came from nothing, but it doesn't. It just pushes it back further. The existence of the creator must now be explained. Where did they come from? It seems much simpler that the universe popped into existence from nothing rather than an intelligence popped into existence from nothing, then decides to create the universe.
Can anyone make sense of this post? It looks like unintelligible symbols crammed together to me.
Why someone? Why not something? Physics say a monopole magnet is mathematically possible, something like that would absolutely cause a disturbance because it doesnβt conform to the laws of physics we have defined like every action has an equal and opposite reactionβ¦ I think youβre right, something happened but I donβt know why it would be someone and not simply probability and the natural world conforming to that probability
I can't answer every question especially pertaining to evolving science. I wouldn't even try.. I'm not religious either. To have something, someone or something had to create it that's all I can muster on the subject. Can you create anything without touching, moving, manipulating by some outside force?
I don't know how it happened, why, person or thing. All I can figure is if the universe was a blank sheet of paper, something had to add, kickstart, etc a reaction for things to unfold regardless of size, time or scale. I don't really believe the universe at its utmost basic, blank canvas form voided form, simply has energy. It doesnt make sense. Energy requires input from some outside source.
Nothing in physics say that time has a beginning or end. It says in fact that it doesn't have that.
It does not say anything about time starting, ending, or anything. It is just a set of rules that approximately reproduce results we observe. It is not the rules of the universe. The rules we use in physics actually do not have a direction for time. It works the same in both directions, though clearly time does have a direction. It does not make predictions on if time started or if it will end, only what is the case for what we can observe right here right now.
Um, yeah the interesting part is that while physics itself indicate time as a one dimensional infinite band, (with possibly branching multiverses but I digress) we as humans attribute a beginning and end, as all we know consists of such objects and entities. Our mind is terrible at grasping infinity, it has even broken many curious minds that try to understand it and are a bit too tenacious in their search. In any case that is my proposal here, that it is an unanswerable question how the universe started. We have facts up to big bang. It (as usual with these things) gives us just more questions than actual answers to how the universe came to exist. I argue that it always did and always will.
I think this is faulty logic. How the universe came to exist is fine, and we don't know, but that the universe "always existed" is a bit odd. You can't have anything before space-time exists. In a sense that means yes, it "always" existed, because that's the start of time, but in another sense it did not exist too, just time didn't exist, if that makes sense. It obviously doesn't really make sense because we're unable to hold that concept in our mind, but time did come into existence.
Unless I have missed something huge, time didn't ever not exist. If you refer to big bang, what evidence says time started then? Sounds really fascinating but I have never heard of it
How do you have time without space-time? The big bang is actually not the exact start of the universe. It's pretty close, but not quite. It is the expansion of the universe. Before that it's in a very dense high energy state, but it does exist. It explains how it went from this state to the current state, but not how it came into existence at all.
I don't think it's believed to have sat in this dense high energy state for infinite time before the big bang, so it must have come into existence, not just existed forever. If that's the case that means space-time came into existence. You can't have time without space-time, so there is no time before it exists. At some point space-time exists, and as such there is no before, since there is not time.
It seems odd to consider. How do things happen without space-time? We can't really think about this concept, because we're space-time beings. It doesn't even make sense to consider. However, having an intelligence start things doesn't help. It only then begs the question where they came from. Surely the universe just starting is more likely than an intelligence appearing for some reason, then it deciding to start the universe. That's a vastly more complex set of circumstances.
I just don't think that makes any sense whatsoever. How is it that things can pop into existence from nothing, that is the hypothesis and disproving it is on us? It should be the other way around. Burden of proof should lay on the idea that things can, and did, pop into existence from nothing. That isn't something we see happen all the time. We do observe time and space, and have never observed it not existing. Like gravity. But I'm probably missing something critical. To me it is a bigger leap to assume time and space came into existence from nothing suddenly.
I linked it somewhere, but it wasn't this chain.
https://scienceandnonduality.com/article/quantum-prediction-something-is-created-from-nothing/
It's a bigger leap to consider that space-time came into existence for no reason than that an intelligence that exists outside of that created it? Where did they come from? They must have come from either nothing (which seems more crazy than a random thing like space-time that is not organized), or something created them, which only pushes the question to what created that thing.
It doesn't simplify it. It only makes it more complicated. The universe just starting at some point is incredibly simple, though fairly crazy to consider since we're space-time beings that did not evolve to consider a lack of space-time. We can't imagine four dimensions easily, let alone zero dimensions. (tangent: zero took a long time to develop, because the concept of nothing is so hard to even hold in our minds.)
The universe just appearing/starting is the simplest answer. The other two answers I can think of is that it always existed (in which case, how can it exist for infinite time; that's as hard to consider as it just starting at zero) or something created it, which then just begs the question: who created them, ad infinitum. Occam's razor applies and says the most likely (though not necessarily correct) answer is the simplest.
We can't prove any of this obviously. It's, I think, literally impossible to prove, and certainly we're incapable of testing it with existing capabilities. Its a philosophical discussion, not a scientific one.
Hmm. I think you can't have those things without an observer. Art, beauty and utility are in the eye (or hand) of the beholder, and apt to appear anywhere.
I agree with this. Whether life is a series of evolving or constant simulation, whatever form it takes for which we cannot form answers for yet. Something cannot come from nothing. I again just don't know, nor does anyone the answer to OPs question.
In fact, nature has some of the best art. And our art is almost as good. Does it mean we are almost god? Does beauty signify gods presence? It is very harsh to the less graceful people that have hearts of gold
Nature is the best art. Nothing a human could produce lasts a comparable scale of time, force, evolution, as nature. I think as a civilization we need to harness more of natures principles. Atleast until we can find another comparable medium that isn't nature to process our problems. Which we have not done yet.
I agree. Except, compared to all other living beings, our art is special. Why is that? Why can Bob Ross teach how to capture it, not only on a visual level but on a visceral cathartic level, for painter and observer to intuit and interpret the signal of the majesty of nature, indeed often even framing a specific part of nature in a love letter that can riff on the concept and introduce fantastic concepts that may even refer to and provoke completely novel amalgamations of existing natural phenomenon and depict them fallably while ultimately even through text inspire a view of the majestic we couldn't without the artist?