Can something come from nothing?
Yes
Side Score: 10
|
 |
No
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
Its supported by the counter-arguements actually. The eternal universe theory is based off the special pleading of ex nihlio. The eternal universe is a theory that the universe keeps alive by reactions, our minds just can't comprehend the reactions needed. If you reverse this, God (i believe Srom is talking about the Christian God's ex nihlio creation) just replaces all these reactions and our minds simply can't comprehend it. All other theories have a beginning and are therefor ex nihlio, ex. the big bang. Side: Yes
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows for particles to come into existence without any cause. I thought this was about how the more accurately you measure somethings speed, the less accurately you can measure it's location. Also if you're correct, the spontaneous emergence of particles from a minimal state of activity (the scientific definition of "nothing" when discussing quantum physics) are not necessarily without cause, but rather the cause is currently unknown. Side: No
not necessarily without cause, but rather the cause is currently unknown That is true - we can't prove the absence of a cause. We do however have strong reason to believe there is no cause because these processes are firstly entirely random. But secondly, and more importantly, said randomness isn't conditioned by any known circumstances, and therefore don't have much reason to think there's a cause behind these processes. I thought this was about how the more accurately you measure somethings speed, the less accurately you can measure it's location. The uncertainty principle describes the fundamental limits of accuracy when measuring complementary variables. Most famously the uncertainty principle is known to imply that we the better we know position the less we can know about momentum. Energy and time, likewise are two complementary variables, and from this arises the implication I was talking about before. When looking at a single point, the more narrow a timespan we look at, we less we can know about the energy at that point. So for quantum-small time lengths the uncertainty in energy is high, and from this uncertainty a pair of particles can loan enough energy out of sheer nothingness to come into existence, but only if it's for a small amount of time. You may ask youself, why the limits our human ability to measure, should have anything to do with how the world works in and of itself. I am not qualified to talk about these things, but the uncertainty principle is not merely a principle about how we look at the world. The fact that we can't measure accurately is because the world in and off itself works according to the uncertainty principle. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
I think it depends on how we're defining 'something,' 'nothing,' as well as 'come from.' As an example, a true vacuum could be reasonably called 'nothing,' And vacuum DOES effect matter exposed to it. Of course, this interpretation would require something to come from something+nothing, not JUST nothing. We can say that an empty container has nothing in it, when it is in fact full of air- in that sense, 'something' could come from 'nothing' in the sense of the container oxidizing or condensation forming. But again, this requires a very specific definition of nothing. Going further from that, some of the properties of matter come not directly from the subatomic particles that matter is made of, but rather from the relatively massive amounts of empty space between the nuclei and electrons. In that sense, something (specific properties of matter) can come from nothing. I guess that brings me back to my first statement. How, exactly, are we defining the terms 'something' and 'nothing,' and how do we define the process of 'coming from' anything? It really does matter. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
