TED Conversations

Budimir Zdravkovic

PhD student in biochemistry/cancer biology,

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The Something out of Nothing Paradox is Outdated

In philosophy classes the paradox regarding the beginning of the universe is still debated. how can a universe emerge from nothing? How can there be an initial cause without a prior cause, or how can time come into existence from a timeless moment. Sean Carroll outlines a feasible alternative in his talk on TED, however there is no reason why the big bang cannot be the beginning. The argument against the big bang relies on an archaic scientific notion which has been abandoned since Newtonian physics came into existence. Noam Chomsky in his lecture at Oslo goes into great detail to outline how we abandoned mechanistic explanations of nature with the emergence of Newtonian physics, where unseen forces can exert physical effects on objects. Modern physics, is concerned with mathematically consistent and comprehensive theories which can predict events in reality, it is less concerned with offering mechanistic explanations and defining concepts such as materialism. We are aware that mathematics can accurately predict reality but mathematics itself doesn't exist as a physical substance or material. Physicists like Hawking propose that when time is smaller than the plank length it is unstable and it may not exist as we experience it. However, through physics and mathematics Hawking has demonstrated that from this unstable condition a universe can emerge so something can come of nothing. As far as I'm concerned if the mathematics is valid there is no reason why its predictive power should not be valid as well. Mathematics doesn't require a materialist or a mechanistic explanation, neither does the predictive power of mathematics depend on such explanations.

Related Talks:
+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Gross Ryder

    • 0
    Sep 12 2012: Something comes out of nothing through an act of creation by a consciousness that has 'power' or 'spirit'
    --as Robert just pointed out - a relationship was created by two beings that had the 'power' or 'love' to so create.
    ----paradox solved
    • thumb

      Budimir Zdravkovic 20+

      • 0
      Sep 15 2012: This is the phenomenon of emergence, where two or more things interact in such a way to produce something that has a new meaning. This could also be said about creativity, we create something new out of old parts essentially by rearranging old parts. The new arrangement has a new meaning or value to us. I agree that there is no explanation as to how meaning emerges, why is some work of art more meaningful then other, there is no explanation.

      • Gross Ryder

        • 0
        Sep 15 2012: There are two kinds of creativity in the human context but only one kind of ‘primordial creation’. The primordial creation - that which is the ‘cause’ of the existence of space-time itself, whether you call it ‘from nothing’ or from the ‘absolute and eternal’ itself is a matter of technical terms – the difference is that when we conceive of the physical cosmos, the term ‘created out of nothing’ by a force or creator that it itself absolute and eternal makes more sense than to say that the physical, that is, matter appeared spontaneously by itself without any consciousness or force behind it, or without any rhyme or reason, or having no Logos or no underlying principle that brought it into existence. But when on the basis of experience or vision we sense and conceive of non-physical reality or Spirit, it becomes clear that existence has a primordial unified or singular source that is eternal and absolute, and therefore this source and underlying principal is the creator of the space-time temporality, as well as the presence in time, of the eternal and infinite – this presence or force is Spirit. Thus Spirit is both temporal as well as eternal.
        Human creativity is always expressed in terms of whatever was already there but is not merely a recombination of existing parts or pieces, but genuine art is always a new synthesis of existing fragments in a unique pattern that has a ‘moving impact’ upon the target subject.
        As an example in music we can say that a new beat or rhythm is a recombination of existing pieces of musical beats or rhythms – which is also creative, but a melody is never just a recombination – it is much more than that – it has a wholesome uniqueness that is pure creativity – in which something has been brought into existence from nothing – that is to say that the melody itself was never in existence until it was created.
        "The greatness of art is to find not that which is common but that which is unique", Issac B.Singer

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.