Why there is something rather than nothing – The finite, infinite and eternal [pdf] | Hacker News Reader

Why there is something rather than nothing – The finite, infinite and eternal [pdf]

arxiv.org

16 points0xFFC27 comments

First: it's nice to give arXiv links to the abstract/metadata page rather than straight to the PDF: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2720

Second, this paper is from 2012.

And third, who is this guy? A quick Google search suggests that he's a college dropout who somehow made a big media splash in 2003 after announcing that he had a radical new theory of time, but has had zero impact on the actual physics community. Why is this paper worth our time?

>Why is this paper worth our time?

It's not, it's obvious crankery.

The paper must have been endorsed by an arXiv endorser:

http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement

Who the endorser is doesn't seem to be public though.

First: thank you I didn't know that.Sadly I couldn't correct it.

Second: Should I mention it in title ?

Third: I didn't know that either. thank you. About worthiness of your time , I think does not come any harm from reading if it not become belief.

It's bogus and poorly written. I'm not sure why this is even here.

To summarize his arguments:

The universe is eternal, which means it has always and will always exist. If there is something that always exists, then it is impossible for there to be nothing. It is impossible for there to be nothing.

Not a very satisfactory answer. The interesting question just becomes: Why is the universe eternal? or Why does there exist an eternal universe at all?

Yes, I always felt that this kind of argument didn't help much.

It implies an a priory probability for "existence of something" of >0 but doesn't tell you why...

Science considers this position to be axiomatic, though. It basically doesn't even need a proof.

> The universe is eternal

Is this proven?

No, he just asserts it. And it's probably impossible to prove.

Numbers can go forever but the universe can't?

I think the universe would be quite annoyed at the idea of being out-ranked by a bunch of numbers.

>I think the universe would be quite annoyed at the idea of being out-ranked by a bunch of numbers.

very amused by this analogy

Replace "universe" with "God" and this starts to feel like a philosophical argument for theism.

It is a rehash of Thomas Aquina's argument and every other cosmological argument.

This debate has being going on for a very long time (our first record of it is with the Greeks). I see no reason why why [0,inf) universes cannot have being (an interesting question is whether [0,fin] universes exist, if they do they probably don't have conservation of energy). The mathematics that defines a universe is certainly eternal, but that doesn't mean that only systems that work for time (-inf,inf) need have being. The logic in the article would also seem to imply that the universe cannot have initial conditions in the way we usually think about them, it can only have constants which hold everywhen which, while certainly in line with scientific dogma, we have not sufficiently show (consider searches for variation in the fine structure constant).

I think the author conflates the eternal nature of the mathematics that defines a universe with the temporal nature of that universe, as if time was not itself something that was defined by the mathematics. Our own universe happens to be one of the mathematical entities that is reasonably stable and doesn't wink back out of existence a microsecond after coming into existence or remain a sea of hot quark-gluon plasma for all eternity. Hell, there are probably universes out there without time.

Reminds me of this article published in in Nature in 2005: "The Mental Universe", from Richard Conn Henry.. similar idea (The PDF is first result in Google)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/n7047/full/436029a...

Terrible paper, it's doesn't use any process of proof (proof by contradiction etc.) It also leads to a logical inconsistencies e.g if the Universe is eternal it must take an infinite amount of time for any being to exist (since the time between the "beginning" and "now" is infinite).

What "beginning"?

Your assumption is that beings exist now, but not ages ago. Perhaps they've always existed in this cyclic universe he talks about.

No this is a common argument against anything involving infinite universe/ universe being infinite. If the universe has always been here how many events does it take for us to exist? Infinte. Saying beings always exist therefore beings exists is not a proof.

Trying to deny the possibility that the universe could not exist is a fool's errand.

Clearly, existence is contingent. There is no logical requirement that matter exist, and there's a clear logical possibility that nothing physical would have ever come into being.

(It's hard to wrap one's mind around this because we do exist.)

I think the better response is that our minds aren't capable of answering the question of whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning, is necessary or contingent. We lack the conceptual apparatus for understanding and/or answering the question. This position goes back at least to Kant's antinomies (specifically the first and fourth): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kant's_antinomies

> It's hard to wrap one's mind around this because we do exist.

I confess that I get slightly dizzy when I contemplate the existence of absolutely nothing. I have all kinds of inexpressible contradictions over the observation of nothing, but skipping all that to the acceptance of "nothing" ... What doe that mean?

"there's a clear logical possibility that nothing physical would have ever come into being"

Not really, because "logical possibilities" wouldn't exist in a true state of universal nothingness. Not even "nothingness" would exist. The fact it does, says that what we have is eternal... or so he says, and I kind of like the idea.

I am one of those people who finds this question fascinating. I am neither a philosopher nor a physicist, but it seems to me that one of two cases must be true: Either the universe has existed for an infinite time in the past or the universe came into existence from nothing. Either of those cases seems extraordinary to me. But am I missing a third option? I realize that some (like Lawrence Krauss) have shown that you can get a universe from nothing plus the laws of physics, however, that seems like a rather unsatisfactory answer. For one thing, it leaves me with the question of where the laws of physics came from? And do the laws of physics exist independently the universe or are they merely convenient models that humans use to describe the universe?

A third option: existence is not a concept that can be used with the spatio-temporal totality that is the universe. Just as there are syntactically correct but meaningless sentences such as "colourless green ideas sleep furiously", there are ideas such as "the universe came into existence" and "the universe always existed" that are "syntactically correct" (according to some unspecified syntax that governs concept formation) but don't pick out meaningful concepts.

A priori, one of these is true:

[ ] the term "universe" mathematically defined as the set of all objects, the sets of all sets is an ill-defined definition

[ ] existence is a function of the universe, thus cannot be separated from it. therefore, isExisting[universe] is non-reducable, and merely a symbolic expression.

Think about these things. They are the real crux of the marvel of the question. And it almost seems puffery to discuss it when these questions are so ...ineffable..

If anyone is interested in some thoughts on this question that have been in vogue in recent years in academic philosophy circles you might want to look into speculative realism (and also look into the immediate disavowel of the term the moment those involved felt pigeon-holed).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com