“If there is something rather than nothing?” then surely this
is an unassailable argument that requires the existence
of a Creator. I mean, after all, out of nothing, nothing comes.
Yet, 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has now been replaced by a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles,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.
When we think of nothing what do we think of?
empty space, the absence of space itself. And really, how can something
come out of nothing?
There is one argument that goes nothing can morph into something because a
state of nothing is unstable.
But when we go more directly to physics we find not only can something arise from nothing,
(particles, popping in and out of existence) but most often the laws of physics require that to occur.
We must not rule out that our universe arose from precisely nothing
when it was embedded in a perhaps infinite space, or infinite collection of spaces,
or spaces-to-be, some of which existed before ours came into being,
and some of which are only now coming into, or going out of existence.
If we take this view, the multiverse, (infinite space, or infinite collection of spaces)
as it has become known, could be eternal. If we accept the eternal and infinity
as a broad sweep of physicist now do, this rather rules out consequentalism
i.e. that creation was enacted by someone who created a place for us.
And don't forget those bubbling brew of virtual particles,
popping in and out of existence.
source: Sam Harris blog: http://www.samharris.org/blog
recomended reading A Universe from Nothing Laurence M. Krauss
No comments:
Post a Comment