TED Conversations

Student ,

This conversation is closed.

Can something come from nothing??

I was reading some articles on google and I found something very interesting.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-12/making-something-nothing-theory-says-matter-can-be-conjured-vacuum
This article says that matter can be conjured from vacuum now.
Then does that mean something can come from nothing??
Or is vacuum considered as something??
Also some following questions,
Is time classified as something??
How would you guys explain the first cause? (i.e God, BigBang)

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +1
    Mar 17 2013: The thing about evidence is that it exists. If there is evidence, then as much as the evidence shows is true. And yes, it does appear (RELATIVE TO OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE) that something comes from nothing, but if nothing IS something, then it isn't true, is it?

    A man named Everett proposed a multi-world theory and supported it with math and science. He didn't invent the idea. I first began learning about it as a philosophy in the late 60s, but there was not enough scientific evidence to support the philosophy, so it wasn't a theory. It was an idea.

    If reality is multi-dimensional, then what we call nothing might well be something - especially if POTENTIAL energy is something.

    If you follow the physics, you will see that it does not allow the God of Abraham to exist as Biblicly defiined. It SUGGESTS that the founding singularity was sentient and when the Big Bang happened (whether by choice or not is not studied yet), the singularity fractured and that which held it together exists in superposition, where it is the total of our experiences. In other words, we create its present moment by moment. It has no power over us, but it is power - the power OF us.

    Take a photon, split it in half, and you really have 3 photons. Two small ones that you can see, and a third that is in superposition - invisible to us because it is probably extradimensional. Chang the spin on one photon, and no matter how far away the entangled twin is, its spin will instantaneously change (in zero time), meaning that information was shared - presumably by the superpositioned sentient "being" (as opposed to "a" being).

    That doesn't make it a God, but if you follow the science as far as you can, it does suggest that you are a god and we are gods.

    When you discard all that is not true, what you have left is true, no matter how unbelievable it is.
    • Mar 17 2013: Reading your comment triggered another question.
      Can there be anything such as nothing?? Once we define its name it surely has to be something. Same thing with vacuum, once we discovered that vacuum is consisted of matter and anti matter, it is something now.

      Also another follow up question, do you think human created God in our minds?
      • thumb
        Mar 18 2013: Is there a "nothing"? That is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

        Of course I believe that the God of Abraham is a man-made invention. I believe "evidence" and have learned how to think logically. I have also learned how to "walk through" my fears rather than react blindly to them.
    • thumb
      Mar 18 2013: Following the science does not suggest anyone being a god. It is your interpretation based on a lack of understanding of quantum mechanics due to its counter intuitive nature.

      If you disagree I'd like to hear your reasoning.
      • thumb
        Mar 19 2013: Faisel, we've been through this. I've given you abundant evidence of how what I suggest is possible. Yet you continue to criticize without ever offering your own evidence that you believe invalidates mine or even offering your own evidence-based opinion, as I have asked you to. I won't get into it with you.
        • thumb
          Mar 19 2013: 1) You have not provided an abundance of evidence. You have quoted studies which all fall into one of the following categories:
          - The researchers use paranormal explanations for phenomena that can easily be explained by basic psychology.
          - The researchers are so biased that they see "unexplainable anomalies" in data, when it's nothing more than statistical fluctuations that are well within the boundaries of our current statistical models.
          - The researchers present fraudulent claims.

          2) I haven't made any claims yet and therefore I don't need to offer any evidence. If you wish to know my stand on this subject you can look up the Copenhagen interpretation. (I am however working on an interpretation of QM that is compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation but can explain the phenomena that are left unexplained in the current model).

          3) All I'm asking that you back up your extraordinary claim that if you follow the science it suggests that we are Gods.
        • Mar 20 2013: Well frankly speaking, I do not think that these questions are answerable. It is somewhat like a ultimate goal of a human being. Figure out why we were made, why we exist, or if we are God or not. This level, I think everything should be considered as a philosophical theory since no one can prove it.
      • thumb
        Mar 20 2013: Faisel, I offered experiments that are the standard of physics. From the Twin Slit Experiment to the most recent CERN discoveries. My view is not alone among quantum physicists and those who, because of what has been learned in QM, are involved in studies of "mind" or consciousness. You offer lies, rude attacks, and nothing of value to this conversation. Good bye.
        • thumb
          Mar 20 2013: 1) Stop making it into a personal matter. I merely ask of you to back up your claim that science suggests that we are "gods".

          2) In what way does the double slit experiment or any experiment at CERN suggest that we are "gods"?

          3) I'm sure there are quantum physicist who believe in obscure things. It doesn't make it more valid.

          4) You keep mentioning studies in mind and consciousness, yet none of them stand the test of scrutiny. You haven't mentioned a single experiment that doesn't fall into one of the above mentioned categories.

          5) I ask you one simple question again: In what way does the science suggest that we are gods? If you make such a claim in a public forum such as this, I believe you should be able to back it up with evidence. You failing to do so leads to the inevitable conclusion that you're just making it up. Yet you are the one accusing me of lying...
    • Mar 19 2013: Belief in God and Science are not mutually exclusive, nor the same thing.
      Religion is a belief in a religious being, science is the search for proof to events or beliefs. Science could possibly find evidence for the existance of God, but I am certain that it can't prove a religion. Religion is largely a question of honoring traditions. You can't quantify that. You can't 'prove' that.
      I deny that science and relgion are mutually exclusive on the basis that they serve different purposes. One seeks to understand the external universe, and one speaks more to the internal one.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.