Something From Nothing

[dhamma_newb]

I'm taking a Philosophy course at university and I think it's interesting that quantum physics has shown that something can come from nothing.

My Professor stated: "Nature does not have to obey the way we think. In quantum physics it is well known that something can be created from nothing and quantum processes were surely involved at the beginning of the universe."

"But current multiverse theories postulate that our universe did not come from nothing. In a sense it was a bubble popping out of another universe. That does not solve the problem of what caused the multiverse."

My question: "Would it be possible that the multiverse came from nothing?"

His response: "As far as I know no astrophysicist has contemplated or stated any theory about where the multiverse (if it exists) came from. Hard enough to explain where our universe came from. But yes, in QM something can be created from nothing."

I am interested in hearing what people think about these statements and how they relate to Buddhist cosmology.

Also, what did the Buddha mean when he said "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it." - AN 4.77 PTS: A ii 80 / Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Also, what did the Buddha mean when he said "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it." - AN 4.77 PTS: A ii 80 / Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable

He meant that it was an unedifying pursuit, that would not resolve questions directly pertinent to the holy life - namely, the nature of suffering, its causes, and how to transcend it.

Metta,
Retro.

[Moggalana]

You might find the following interview interesting: Sam Harris interviews Lawrence M. Krauss about his book "A Universe From Nothing"

...
Modern science has made the something-from-nothing debate irrelevant. It has changed completely our conception of the very words “something” and “nothing”. Empirical discoveries continue to tell us that the Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not, and ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy. (Indeed, religion and philosophy have added nothing to our understanding of these ideas in millennia.) I spend a great deal of time in the book detailing precisely how physics has changed our notions of “nothing,” for example. The old idea that nothing might involve empty space, devoid of mass or energy, or anything material, for example, has now been replaced by a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence in a time so short that we cannot detect them directly. I then go on to explain how other versions of “nothing”—beyond merely empty space—including the absence of space itself, and even the absence of physical laws, can morph into “something.” Indeed, in modern parlance, “nothing” is most often unstable. Not only can something arise from nothing, but most often the laws of physics require that to occur.
...

[dhamma_newb]

Hey Moggalana,

Yeah my philosophy teacher recommended that book but I haven't checked it out yet. Now I will. Thanks!

Peace,
Don

[dhamma_newb]

Thanks for clarifying that for me Retro.

Greetings,

Also, what did the Buddha mean when he said "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it." - AN 4.77 PTS: A ii 80 / Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable

He meant that it was an unedifying pursuit, that would not resolve questions directly pertinent to the holy life - namely, the nature of suffering, its causes, and how to transcend it.

Metta,
Retro.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Who was it who said:

“Science teaches you to know more and more about less and less until you know everything about nothing. Philosophy teaches you to know less and less about more and more until you know nothing about everything.”



The Buddha teaches us to know more and more about the truth of suffering, until we know the right path to reach the end of suffering.

[Sam Vara]

Apparently, physicists and cosmologists don't always make the best philosophers. You might be interested in

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/ ... sense.html

Bill Vallicella (the"Maverick Philosopher") also occasionally writes with insight about Buddhism, although he is I believe a Catholic.

[chownah]

I think there is a gap in the information here about the recently discovered something that came from nothing. Scientists have a a very complicated theory that explains the tiny bits of stuff that make up bigger bits of stuff that make up our world...they actually have more than one theory but the popular and presently most successful one at predicting what will happen when certain conditions exist at that very very small scale is called quantum science. The theory itself is a thicket of mathematical equations which have evolved over time and their evolution is driven by the need to accout for the results of experiments conducted at that very very small scale. Something that surprises non-scientists is that when you have such a complicated set of equations which explains things that you have seen you can take those equations and see consequences of their structure which allows you to predict things that should happen if the equations are indeed correct in modeling the behavior....so....scientists analyse various aspects of these equations looking for something they can predict and then they construct new experiments trying to find what their analysis of the equations has predicted. This is basically the driving force in particle physics today and will almost assuredly be for the forseeable future.

Anyway....some scientists looked at the equations and said that if they are to hold true then there need to be particles spontaneously arising in pairs out of space where no particles were before. I know this seems like gibberish but that is what they predicted. The problem is that these particles recombine so fast and existed in such a small space that there was no known way to detect them.....until recently when an experiment was constructed for the purpose of detecting them. The theoretical idea behind the experiment was that a device was made so that if there were no spontaneous particles present then one thing should happen but if a certain kind of particle was present (and which would not be present unless it spontaneously arose) then something else would happen.......when they tried it the "something else" happened and this is taken as a confirmation of the existence of the particle and the only way that particle could have been there was by spontaneously arising.

So.....since scientists have alway conceived of empty space as being...well...EMPTY...and by empty they meant that there was nothing at all there of any kind....then for a particle to emerge from this nothingness of the present view of empty space this means that something came out of nothing. Now it could be that scientists will re-evaluate their ideas of "empty space" so that it is not empty but that there are things there that have not been detected. After all the concept of "dark matter" and "dark energy" are relatively new and while there is alot of evidence to support their existence neither has been directly detected as existing in any particular region of space so I suppose (my views) it is possible that they pervade all of space but are simply not detected and these spontaneously arising pairs of virtual particles might turn out to be the first evidence of a way to directly interact with dark matter or dark energy....I guess....but I don't know for sure.....I'm just a rice farmer....I have a much better understanding about how to grow rice or cow peas.....
chownah

[minh-khong]

....since scientists have alway conceived of empty space as being...well...EMPTY...and by empty they meant that there was nothing at all there of any kind....then for a particle to emerge from this nothingness of the present view of empty space this means that something came out of nothing. Now it could be that scientists will re-evaluate their ideas of "empty space" so that it is not empty but that there are things there that have not been detected. After all the concept of "dark matter" and "dark energy" are relatively new and while there is alot of evidence to support their existence neither has been directly detected as existing in any particular region of space so I suppose (my views) it is possible that they pervade all of space but are simply not detected and these spontaneously arising pairs of virtual particles might turn out to be the first evidence of a way to directly interact with dark matter or dark energy....
chownah

more or less ... given time, science will construct devices to be able "detect" them . Here is my view of it - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=11220

[perkele]

Hello everyone!

@chownah: It amazes me how you are able to explain scientific stuff in simple terms.

Greetings,

Also, what did the Buddha mean when he said "Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it." - AN 4.77 PTS: A ii 80 / Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable

He meant that it was an unedifying pursuit, that would not resolve questions directly pertinent to the holy life - namely, the nature of suffering, its causes, and how to transcend it.

Metta,
Retro.

I think "unedifying" is a very mild word. If you see such things as ultimately unedifying you are quite well-off. But if you don't, if you are just desperately trying to arrive at some answer (to find the meaning of everything, to know everything, to put reality into a neat Venn diagram, or whatever...) then "madness and vexation" is a very good description of what eventually happens.
Of course not all scientists investigating in such a direction go mad, presumably because they still see another purpose in their life and put it aside and do something else. But if you are absorbed into such a pursuit then you really can't arrive at any final result other than madness and vexation. I think one should take the Buddha very literal here.
I don't say that one might not find out some somehow "useful" things here or there on the way. But if one cannot accept the limits of one's own thinking then "madness and vexaton" is to be expected at some point.

One of the most useful things the Buddha said in regards to the beginning of the universe IMO is that samsara has no conceivable beginning, or at least that he could not arrive at a beginning while remembering his past lives further and further back through thousands and thousands of world-cycles. With that, many speculative questions just evaporate as meaningless.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings perkele ,

I think "unedifying" is a very mild word.

Yes - I didn't want dhamma_newb to feel I was being harsh, as some people get offended when you tell them that their line of inquiry has no direct relevance to the Dhamma.

There's a risk in such discussions that someone might wrongly assume that about Buddhism is about suppression of intelligence etc. when it's nothing of the sort.

Anyway, yes, I agree with your statement.

Metta,
Retro.

[dhamma_newb]

Greetings perkele ,

I think "unedifying" is a very mild word.

Yes - I didn't want dhamma_newb to feel I was being harsh, as some people get offended when you tell them that their line of inquiry has no direct relevance to the Dhamma.

There's a risk in such discussions that someone might wrongly assume that about Buddhism is about suppression of intelligence etc. when it's nothing of the sort.

Anyway, yes, I agree with your statement.

Metta,
Retro.

Thanks guys. It's OK if I'm offended. I'd rather hear it how it is and feel offended than hear the "padded" version just so my feelings won't be hurt. So basically the Buddha was saying why go crazy worrying about things that don't really matter when you've got more important things to deal with, like your greed, hatred, and delusion? Forgive me for my "Buddhist For Dummies" interpretation of the sutta but it's the best that I could come up with.

[perkele]

Greetings perkele ,
Thanks guys. It's OK if I'm offended. I'd rather hear it how it is and feel offended than hear the "padded" version just so my feelings won't be hurt. So basically the Buddha was saying why go crazy worrying about things that don't really matter when you've got more important things to deal with, like your greed, hatred, and delusion? Forgive me for my "Buddhist For Dummies" interpretation of the sutta but it's the best that I could come up with.

Yes, yes, exactly. Instead of building up more delusion (intricate unverifiable theories about the beginning of the universe) you should take a sharp, deep look at the delusion that is there - which I must admit, I find extremely hard to look at, too... And that looks so unedifying... But it isn't! (if you look the right way, learning how to look)
And the right way to look the Buddha taught, too.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I'd rather hear it how it is and feel offended than hear the "padded" version just so my feelings won't be hurt.

Not "padded", just "tactful".

But yes, as perkele says, you're spot on.

Metta,
Retro.

[dhamma_newb]

Greetings,

I'd rather hear it how it is and feel offended than hear the "padded" version just so my feelings won't be hurt.

Not "padded", just "tactful".

But yes, as perkele says, you're spot on.

Metta,
Retro.

Yes Retro I forgot to thank you for being kind while explaining things for me. No offense meant.

[Son]

I think there is a gap in the information here about the recently discovered something that came from nothing. Scientists have a a very complicated theory that explains the tiny bits of stuff that make up bigger bits of stuff that make up our world...they actually have more than one theory but the popular and presently most successful one at predicting what will happen when certain conditions exist at that very very small scale is called quantum science. The theory itself is a thicket of mathematical equations which have evolved over time and their evolution is driven by the need to accout for the results of experiments conducted at that very very small scale. Something that surprises non-scientists is that when you have such a complicated set of equations which explains things that you have seen you can take those equations and see consequences of their structure which allows you to predict things that should happen if the equations are indeed correct in modeling the behavior....so....scientists analyse various aspects of these equations looking for something they can predict and then they construct new experiments trying to find what their analysis of the equations has predicted. This is basically the driving force in particle physics today and will almost assuredly be for the forseeable future.

Anyway....some scientists looked at the equations and said that if they are to hold true then there need to be particles spontaneously arising in pairs out of space where no particles were before. I know this seems like gibberish but that is what they predicted. The problem is that these particles recombine so fast and existed in such a small space that there was no known way to detect them.....until recently when an experiment was constructed for the purpose of detecting them. The theoretical idea behind the experiment was that a device was made so that if there were no spontaneous particles present then one thing should happen but if a certain kind of particle was present (and which would not be present unless it spontaneously arose) then something else would happen.......when they tried it the "something else" happened and this is taken as a confirmation of the existence of the particle and the only way that particle could have been there was by spontaneously arising.

So.....since scientists have alway conceived of empty space as being...well...EMPTY...and by empty they meant that there was nothing at all there of any kind....then for a particle to emerge from this nothingness of the present view of empty space this means that something came out of nothing. Now it could be that scientists will re-evaluate their ideas of "empty space" so that it is not empty but that there are things there that have not been detected. After all the concept of "dark matter" and "dark energy" are relatively new and while there is alot of evidence to support their existence neither has been directly detected as existing in any particular region of space so I suppose (my views) it is possible that they pervade all of space but are simply not detected and these spontaneously arising pairs of virtual particles might turn out to be the first evidence of a way to directly interact with dark matter or dark energy....I guess....but I don't know for sure.....I'm just a rice farmer....I have a much better understanding about how to grow rice or cow peas.....
chownah

I just want to say, sir: This is the most coherent and illuminating response to particle physics that I have ever in my entire life heard of.

I have discussed particle physics and related topics with so many people and read so many studies and spent so many whiles drawing diagrams on walls. I don't know how you articulated it so directly and so intuitively, but you have done something special and important, and I would like to recognize that. I'm also saving what you have said here to put in my collections. Thank you.

[David N. Snyder]

Now it could be that scientists will re-evaluate their ideas of "empty space" so that it is not empty but that there are things there that have not been detected.

Yes, I agree too. It reminds me of one of my college professors who warned us about the need for using the correct measuring device (when doing a scientific study). If a fisherman catches fish with a large, wide net (with large holes) it will only catch fish that are 8" or larger as the small ones pass through. It would be wrong for the fisherman to conclude that there are "no small fish in that body of water." Another fisherman could come by with a finer net/web and catch several small fish.

[Son]

I think there is a gap in the information here about the recently discovered something that came from nothing. Scientists have a a very complicated theory that explains the tiny bits of stuff that make up bigger bits of stuff that make up our world...they actually have more than one theory but the popular and presently most successful one at predicting what will happen when certain conditions exist at that very very small scale is called quantum science. The theory itself is a thicket of mathematical equations which have evolved over time and their evolution is driven by the need to accout for the results of experiments conducted at that very very small scale. Something that surprises non-scientists is that when you have such a complicated set of equations which explains things that you have seen you can take those equations and see consequences of their structure which allows you to predict things that should happen if the equations are indeed correct in modeling the behavior....so....scientists analyse various aspects of these equations looking for something they can predict and then they construct new experiments trying to find what their analysis of the equations has predicted. This is basically the driving force in particle physics today and will almost assuredly be for the forseeable future.

This is the part I think that applies essentially to the Buddha's advisement. It's a futile thing really because the fundamental scientific measurements of reality are always going to bring up questions. Quantum mechanics proves, that the closer you get to scientifically observing reality, the less intuitive it becomes, the more absurd it becomes and the more nonsensical. Notwithstanding, a small portion of what people call metaphysics--but that relies on meditation and wisdom--actually makes sense of it. On the other hand, it takes a vast entanglement of mathematical abstraction to explain it as well. That's why mind and form are separate that way.

Anyway....some scientists looked at the equations and said that if they are to hold true then there need to be particles spontaneously arising in pairs out of space where no particles were before. I know this seems like gibberish but that is what they predicted. The problem is that these particles recombine so fast and existed in such a small space that there was no known way to detect them.....until recently when an experiment was constructed for the purpose of detecting them. The theoretical idea behind the experiment was that a device was made so that if there were no spontaneous particles present then one thing should happen but if a certain kind of particle was present (and which would not be present unless it spontaneously arose) then something else would happen.......when they tried it the "something else" happened and this is taken as a confirmation of the existence of the particle and the only way that particle could have been there was by spontaneously arising.

My theory is, it's not a particle per say (in the usual sense) but rather a "connection," that spontaneously arises. And I think this culminates in the contact of form and consciousness. Because even the four great elementary qualities conduct quantum mechanics, from which form builds in the kama sphere. In the rupa sphere there is no matter, but there's form. What I'm saying is, consciousness has contact with the form elements and it generates a "connectivity" presence in the quantum space. This connectivity creates space particles, wind, fire, water and earth particles, and this earth particle I speculate might be the thing which generates mass, thus allowing atoms or alternative building blocks to pop out (of invisible hyperspace). The elemental qualities conduct these particles and allow subatomic particles and atoms to coerce. This is clear when we take the elemental qualities into the context of the behavior of subatomic particles.

I have hence babbled.

So.....since scientists have alway conceived of empty space as being...well...EMPTY...and by empty they meant that there was nothing at all there of any kind....then for a particle to emerge from this nothingness of the present view of empty space this means that something came out of nothing. Now it could be that scientists will re-evaluate their ideas of "empty space" so that it is not empty but that there are things there that have not been detected. After all the concept of "dark matter" and "dark energy" are relatively new and while there is alot of evidence to support their existence neither has been directly detected as existing in any particular region of space so I suppose (my views) it is possible that they pervade all of space but are simply not detected and these spontaneously arising pairs of virtual particles might turn out to be the first evidence of a way to directly interact with dark matter or dark energy....I guess....but I don't know for sure.....I'm just a rice farmer....I have a much better understanding about how to grow rice or cow peas.....
chownah

My thinking is that there is a static energy that fills emptiness[this is very scientific reasoning only], and consciousness causes cohesion of this static to the elemental qualities, in other words, form. Which demonstrates that the mechanics by which consciousness meets form to produce contact, is based on static cohesion to the elements--scientifically legitimizing that the four elements are indeed fundamentally basic, and that these mechanics (ergo quantum mechanics) are based on elements, and also ensue from consciousness. Static energy isn't measurable, it isn't permanent or solid, and herein I have supplanted it to consciousness--a fundamental element, along with space which is the element of derivation.

This is my thinking of quantum mechanics as explained through energy, consciousness, and the elements according to Buddhism. I also think this explains a lot of incoherent concepts that have cropped up in Buddhism throughout Sarvastavadan, Mahayanic and Vajrayanic as well as other traditions descending from Buddha's teaching.

Now it could be that scientists will re-evaluate their ideas of "empty space" so that it is not empty but that there are things there that have not been detected.

Yes, I agree too. It reminds me of one of my college professors who warned us about the need for using the correct measuring device (when doing a scientific study). If a fisherman catches fish with a large, wide net (with large holes) it will only catch fish that are 8" or larger as the small ones pass through. It would be wrong for the fisherman to conclude that there are "no small fish in that body of water." Another fisherman could come by with a finer net/web and catch several small fish.

Indeed, furthermore the man with the airtight "net" will actually catch the water itself and hold it within the bag. Therefore space itself is substantial, elemental.

son of Dhamma.

[sunyavadin]

It is interesting that, if a planet is in the right place, add water, and stand back, and intelligent life evolves. OK, takes a long time to happen, although 'time' is very much a human concept. I wonder if this would happen on any suitably-placed planet, and I suspect it would.

Although, as the Buddha stated, speculating about the beginning of things is not conducive to the path. It is quite possible that in the end, we will discover that the Universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction in a never-ending process. That is pretty much how the ancient Indian civilization saw it also. The point of the teaching is the cause of dukkha and the ending of it.

[Alex123]

I'm taking a Philosophy course at university and I think it's interesting that quantum physics has shown that something can come from nothing.

I really dislike (to use a polite term) when people misuse Quantum Mechanics by taking it away from its context, scope and making elephants out of mosquito.

Quantum mechanics (QM – also known as quantum physics, or quantum theory) is a branch of physics dealing with physical phenomena where the action is on the order of the Planck constant. Quantum mechanics departs from classical mechanics primarily at the quantum realm of atomic and subatomic length scales. QM provides a mathematical description of much of the dual particle-like and wave-like behavior and interactions of energy and matter. Link

Quantum Mechanics explains interactions between sub-atomic phenomenon on a sub-atomic scale. It has virtually nothing, nothing to do with world we live in where classical laws work.

When you say "something can come from nothing", if QM teaches that, it applies ONLY on sub-atomic scale to sub atomic particles (quarks,etc). It does NOT apply to us and to things larger than atoms.

Some time ago I heard one good teacher talking about how 99% of atom is "empty space"... Well, if matter is "99% empty" then why can't you walk through a wall which is supposed to be 99% empty? Why don't you sink down and fall down from the earth if it is really 99% empty. ...