Bill

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle cannot operate at the macro level (the level of the existence of a dog), unless causality is really just an illusion (and a damn good one at that). What the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle actually does is it allows a "thing" to "borrow" a bit of energy from "somewhere" in order to briefly change state, repaying that energy debt (and changing state back again) shortly thereafter. While the time between the two changes of state is extremely brief, it is both finite and positive. The idea is that this finite and positive amount of time is taking place on the worldline of some other space/time continuum, and thus the entire "Big Bang" universe can be born, mature, and die within the brief span of that energy borrowing over on that other space/time continuum. That is the idea being sold by those who attempt to prove that the "Big Bang" actually came out of "nothing." They are trying to prove that a quantum fluctuation in one space/time continuum can cause an entire other space/time continuum to come into existence and live its "life" completely, all during the brief moment in time during which the "energy borrowing" occurs due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle over in that other space/time continuum.

Got it now?

== Bill

HallaK9

Thanks for the links, Bill

By Jim Still, The Mental Discomfort of "Why":
Great article, it pretty much summarizes what I had thought myself. I would just like to point out that it is not necessary to be a "believer" of any persuasion to wonder about the wonder of existence (problem of life, as Still puts it).

Has anyone refuted, or tried to, the idea that nothing can be conceived about the framework or context in which our universe exists?

Antti

Answerer

Well I think that all of us should consider the defination of 'nothingness' first before arguing pointlessly.

Bill

Philosophically, the idea cannot be refuted with logic and/or reason. The only refutation can come from deliberately adopting some idea that contradicts the above idea, such as the idea of the God of Christian theism. But, as Wittgenstein makes clear, that mearly dislocates the problem. If everything that humanity has contact with is caused by that God, then we have to ask "why God rather than no God?" In Christian theism, by convention, such questions cannot be asked. Thus, the only way to resolve the matter is to agree to not ask the question in the first place. If that is the case, then, why bother with the God of Christian theism?

== Bill

HallaK9

By Bill:
Exactly. But it still bugs me, though

Coragyps

Discussions of this sort make me damn glad that quantum fluctuations don't operate at a large enough scale to have prevented Herr Doktor Bayer from inventing aspirin.

echidna

I can’t help but hear this as an equally frustrating corollary to the Christian version of the unknowableness of God. But as I see it then, materialism is not sufficient to fully explain materialism ?

Bill, does not the Transactional Interpretation rely on quantum communication backwards in time to achieve consistent results ?

Bill

This is not necessarily true. While the "Big Bang" does mark a clearly finite "beginning in time" (within some frame of reference), it does not necessarily follow that there is no "materialist eternity." In other words, there can be a fully materialistic eternity that lies behind the "Big Bang" and which then represents the so-called "First Cause." However, the existence of that "materialist eternity" is quite controversial, even within the fields of science where the possibility is being studied. Nonetheless, I still hold it out as the "most likely to succeed" of all known possible explanations for questions like "why is our 'Big Bang' space/time continuum here for us to enjoy, anyway?"

Obviously, when my own "most likely to succeed" hypothesis is so far from proven that I cannot rationally assert it as being "undeniably true," I feel forced to label myself as an "agnostic" in order to avoid the logical contradiction of calling myself a "materialist" with no adequate proof for that position. And since I don't expect the debate over "materialist eternity" to be resolved within my lifetime, I frankly expect to die an agnostic. Yes.

And that communication "backwards in time" is fully consistant with the most popular known interpretations of quantum mechanics. In the equations which define quantum theories, time can operate in either direction.

== Bill

Wyrdsmyth

I think it's entirely possible that everything "always was," which is to say, the totality of matter and energy of our universe has always existed in some form -- at least as far back as time goes. And with modern physics, that is the big hitch. Did time begin at some discrete point, or not? I don't pretend to understand it, and anyway it's all weird math and theory anyway... But what sense does it make to ask "what was before time?" or "what is outside of space?" Before and outside are temporal and spatial qualifiers, respectively.

I think the traditional image is of a more lowbrow and perhaps misleading dichotomy; either the universe has always existed, or it came into existence -- and if the latter, then it must have come from something, and that something is what a lot of people want to slap a god-label on.

That just doesn't work for me... Putting a "Hi! I'm Yahweh, the Creator of All" nametag on some dubious philosophical concept concluded by a rather shaky and probably unsound metaphysical argument just isn't going to get me to run to church and repent my unbelieving ways. Get thee behind me, Aquinas.

David Gould

If the universe is a formal system, and it is metaphysically naturalistic, then metaphysical naturalism will be unable to explain itself.

Thus, there will be true statements in naturalism that will not be able to be proved true by naturalism.

I think this is a consequence of Godel's theorem but I am not sure.