There are two recent books I know of that take on quite a peculiar subject - Nothingness.
One is by the Theoretical Physicist Lawrence Krauss' book, 'A Universe From Nothing' that was issued in January of 2012. And the more recent 'Why does the world exist' by Jim Holt.
Both books tackle the intriguing question, 'Why is there something, rather than nothing.'
Jean Paul Sartre's seminal work 'Being and nothingness' tackles this same question from a philosophical perspective, and is the basis for his quite seductive existentialist philosophy.
Let us not forget the original nothingness-ist, Gautama Buddha and the conclusion that at its core, reality is 'shunya.'
If one pauses to ponder this question - it is quite a remarkable one. Indeed, we would be right if we observed that this question has been pondered (in frustration, one might add) since antiquity. And that most of the answers point to the inscrutability of the answer to this question.
So, are we really at the breakthrough point in contemporary times to attempt to answer this question again?
As amazing as this sounds, it seems so.
In a manner of speaking, of course. There are some questions that can be answered and some that cannot be - the former because science is opening the doors to mystery. The latter mostly because we sometimes ask questions with false assumptions.
Lawrence Krauss tackles the 'how' part of the answer to the question, i.e 'how is there something rather than nothing.'
Jim Holt vigorously takes on 'what' part of the question, i.e. 'what makes the universe have something rather than nothing'
And between the two we can surmise a surprisingly palatable answer to the question, 'why is there something rather than nothing'
We need to begin with a quick definition, to my earlier point about traps of semantics and false assumptions.
Example question:
Q: Why is the sun bright?
A: Science has taught us that there are nuclear explosions in the sun, that causes photons to stream out into the cosmos and we catch some that come our way; [and we have evolved eyes, that are sensitive to photons]
The stipulation is that the above answer is satisfactory, in the sense that the 'why' question is answered. This enables an objective conversation.
However, if the further question is, 'but why is there a photon' - then we have an infinitely recursive set of questions and answers - which, will be, well infinite!
Lawrence Krauss' book, 'A universe from nothing' lays out an elegant framework of how quantum mechanics explains how something can pop out of nothing. He beautifully describes how in a flat universe, the net energy is zero - and out of that condition things that cancel out each other automatically pop. i.e. 'nothingness is unstable'
Here is an example.
0 = 1 - 1
You can say that 1 and -1 cancel out each other and there is nothing. Or you can say, nothingness (zero) peels its self into something comprising opposite pairs. An elegant way of saying nothing and something are equivalent.
Here is a link to a dazzling lecture by Lawrence Krauss that explains this concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Very entertaining and informative. The above lecture has a bit of salty humor and a bit of a tin-ear for potential sensitivities (but hey, we are adults - and an occasional poke at our sensitivities, might well, be sensible!).
The second book, the one by Jim Holt titled, 'Why does the universe exist?' is a rare book. It is by a sincere author, with no pretensions; but one with relentless curiosity and unique access to the world's best thinkers. He is one who has the guts to state an inclusive answer in contemporary, yet personal terms. Bravo!
The answer he comes up with through a series of amazing conversations, meets in my mind, the following criteria. His answer appears i) reasonable, ii) plausible, iii) non-tautological, iv) rational v) verifiable and vi) inclusive answer. And it avoids mushiness to boot.
Here are two reviews of the book one in the NY Times and the other in the Wall Street Journal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/books/review/why-does-the-world-exist-by-jim-holt.html?pagewanted=all
And an interview with with the author Jim Holt by Charlie Rose:
Q: Why is there something rather than nothing?(!)
A: I exist now (pretty indisputably, as Descartes concluded). But the 'I' itself is a massive agglomeration (of atoms and such). Even though we ourselves find the universe we live in to be vast, so are each of us, for example to a microbe that resides inside us. [Therefore, the statement this universe is vast or this universe is old, is a rather human-centric, and an arbitrary point of view].
This 'I' that we all are, was born in a big bang when a sperm connected with an egg and I 'inflated' over 20 earth years. I did not exist before, I will not exist later, but I exist now! So 'I' am something, and 'I' came out of nothing.
That insight can be connected and can be used as an analogy for this whole universe. At the universe's big bang, space-time was so curved that it's radius was zero. [A good definition of 'nothing' - it is a curved space-time of zero radius, i.e. a singularity].
Nothing is unstable, as Lawrence Krauss says. And, through a process of quantum inflation, the universe exploded into matter, time and space.
A conclusion is: nothing and something are the same! Or put differently, nothing is simply an aspect of something.
Both books tackle the intriguing question, 'Why is there something, rather than nothing.'
Jean Paul Sartre's seminal work 'Being and nothingness' tackles this same question from a philosophical perspective, and is the basis for his quite seductive existentialist philosophy.
Let us not forget the original nothingness-ist, Gautama Buddha and the conclusion that at its core, reality is 'shunya.'
If one pauses to ponder this question - it is quite a remarkable one. Indeed, we would be right if we observed that this question has been pondered (in frustration, one might add) since antiquity. And that most of the answers point to the inscrutability of the answer to this question.
So, are we really at the breakthrough point in contemporary times to attempt to answer this question again?
As amazing as this sounds, it seems so.
In a manner of speaking, of course. There are some questions that can be answered and some that cannot be - the former because science is opening the doors to mystery. The latter mostly because we sometimes ask questions with false assumptions.
Jim Holt vigorously takes on 'what' part of the question, i.e. 'what makes the universe have something rather than nothing'
And between the two we can surmise a surprisingly palatable answer to the question, 'why is there something rather than nothing'
We need to begin with a quick definition, to my earlier point about traps of semantics and false assumptions.
Example question:
Q: Why is the sun bright?
A: Science has taught us that there are nuclear explosions in the sun, that causes photons to stream out into the cosmos and we catch some that come our way; [and we have evolved eyes, that are sensitive to photons]
The stipulation is that the above answer is satisfactory, in the sense that the 'why' question is answered. This enables an objective conversation.
However, if the further question is, 'but why is there a photon' - then we have an infinitely recursive set of questions and answers - which, will be, well infinite!
Lawrence Krauss' book, 'A universe from nothing' lays out an elegant framework of how quantum mechanics explains how something can pop out of nothing. He beautifully describes how in a flat universe, the net energy is zero - and out of that condition things that cancel out each other automatically pop. i.e. 'nothingness is unstable'
Here is an example.
0 = 1 - 1
You can say that 1 and -1 cancel out each other and there is nothing. Or you can say, nothingness (zero) peels its self into something comprising opposite pairs. An elegant way of saying nothing and something are equivalent.
Here is a link to a dazzling lecture by Lawrence Krauss that explains this concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Very entertaining and informative. The above lecture has a bit of salty humor and a bit of a tin-ear for potential sensitivities (but hey, we are adults - and an occasional poke at our sensitivities, might well, be sensible!).
The second book, the one by Jim Holt titled, 'Why does the universe exist?' is a rare book. It is by a sincere author, with no pretensions; but one with relentless curiosity and unique access to the world's best thinkers. He is one who has the guts to state an inclusive answer in contemporary, yet personal terms. Bravo!
The answer he comes up with through a series of amazing conversations, meets in my mind, the following criteria. His answer appears i) reasonable, ii) plausible, iii) non-tautological, iv) rational v) verifiable and vi) inclusive answer. And it avoids mushiness to boot.
Here are two reviews of the book one in the NY Times and the other in the Wall Street Journal:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/books/review/why-does-the-world-exist-by-jim-holt.html?pagewanted=all
Hope you get a chance to read these two books to engage on a spectacularly interesting and intriguing topic.
You might wade through all of the above and say, 'well, what is their answer?!' Clearly the best route is to read their books and infer the answer yourself. I have done this.
If you are of the view talking about this answer is a 'spoiler' for your own enjoyment of these books - then please don't go past this section.
But if you are skeptical that one can frame an answer or an approach to an answer to this inscrutable question, or wouldn't mind mulling over this synthesis, then please proceed.
:-)
Q: Why is there something rather than nothing?(!)
A: I exist now (pretty indisputably, as Descartes concluded). But the 'I' itself is a massive agglomeration (of atoms and such). Even though we ourselves find the universe we live in to be vast, so are each of us, for example to a microbe that resides inside us. [Therefore, the statement this universe is vast or this universe is old, is a rather human-centric, and an arbitrary point of view].
This 'I' that we all are, was born in a big bang when a sperm connected with an egg and I 'inflated' over 20 earth years. I did not exist before, I will not exist later, but I exist now! So 'I' am something, and 'I' came out of nothing.
That insight can be connected and can be used as an analogy for this whole universe. At the universe's big bang, space-time was so curved that it's radius was zero. [A good definition of 'nothing' - it is a curved space-time of zero radius, i.e. a singularity].
Nothing is unstable, as Lawrence Krauss says. And, through a process of quantum inflation, the universe exploded into matter, time and space.
A conclusion is: nothing and something are the same! Or put differently, nothing is simply an aspect of something.
7 comments:
Let me start with the reason why it is so difficult to define nothing. Deep in space, where there is absolute vacuum is supposed to exist can be said as a first step close to nothing. But immediately we know that it is not true. Because if that is so why does light have a specific velocity ? Light is supposed to be restricted in its electric vector by the dielectric permittivity of the vacuum and also the magnetic vector restricted by the magnetic permeability. In fact it is these two that restrict the speed of light.
So, even the deep space vacuum can not be said to be nothing.
Then we have the concept of negative mass. It is believed that at the big bang, most of the mass created was supposed to be negative mass. Very little positive mass was in existence. But for some reason the positive mass slowly increased and the negative mass has completely disappeared.
Only recently scientists discovered the existence of the negative mass. So when one can have negative of some thing how can one have nothing ?
The third is a bigger enigma. This is the black hole. It is said that all mass and energy will 'disappear' once it is sucked into it. But how can some thing disappear ? What will happen to it ? There is no answer to it. Can we say that it becomes nothing ? No, not really. This is because, some where else we have the white dwarfs. These emit energy 'spontaneously'. It is not clear where they get this energy. So can we say that it gets it from the nothing ? I do not know.
So, in reality ( assuming that we know what reality is) there is nothing called 'nothing' !. This is similar to infinity. Things can tend towards infinity or nothingness but we never reach there. Further problem adding to this difficulty is our ability to define nothingness.
You have already stated that when we go to the submicroscopic state, the Heisenberg Principle does not allow us to measure both position (manifest) and momentum (unmanifest) simultaneously. So our ability to perceive or define nothingness has a limitation.
So, one has to only resort to speculation or projection of what is perceivable.
Finally, I think my answer to my knowledge about nothing is - ' nothing'!
Very nice write-up.
I am glad right at the start you duly assign credit to Buddhism for the original thought on shunya. I read the reviews but yet to see the video.
But I think unless I read the book itself, I would not know what exactly to make of Holt's idea.
In the absence of which, from your write-up and reviews I surmise the gist is about - ultimately it is NOTHING and it from nothing actually 1 and -1 can spring up and go back to nothing of course.
That sort of scientific visualization is OK with me. But the more appealing statements in the reviews for me were; Could the world be an outcropping of consciousness? Does all nature have a subjectivity of its own? Or is the universe a device for producing "the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."
There was also the mention what Martin Amis once said in a television interview: We are at least five Einsteins away from answering that question.
I would agree, except that I actually call them Sankara, Thirumoolar, Vyasa, Buddha, etc!
In genuine 'nothing' there is neither space, nor time, nor zero, nor
idea of curvature !
We are conditioned to view and think in terms of space and time and hence try to define nothing on these terms without which we are unable to conceive of anything OR NOTHING !
I have always thought of blackhole as antimatter. i.e. as -1 as we said in this exchange.
Actually much less than NOTHING in that sense!!
So to lighten up the discussion, here are my 2 cents. You got to laugh or smile after reading this.
One day, in the car, I was driving home and my daughter from the back seat asked me this question. If we are created by God (nothing or something), who created the God (nothing or something)?
I was very tempted to say that we created God. But I held back, since it will destroy the concept of god itself in her thoughts. And, I am not sure. Then, I told her, that my/our mind is only privileged only for the search and not the answer that may come along with it.
As usual, I pulled out my simple movie based philosophy of Star Trek the movie from 1970s. V(oya)-ger goes to a advanced civilization run by machines, acquires self consciousness and immense knowledge. However, V-Ger is not satisfied, since it is basic programming is to "seek out knowledge and transmit back to the creator". Finally, V-ger comes back to Earth to touch the creator. However, it does not know and refuses to believe that carbon based organisms are its creator. In that process comes close to destroying its own creators. Finally, it merges with a human subject reaches "nirvana."
May be we are also in search of nothing and something....
Finally, the answer may be "42" [Ref: Douglas Adams: Hitchhikers Guide to Galaxy]
I glanced back and my daughter, as usual, tuned out and went back to sleep. I wa
Again my take is that experience itself is a 'state' of the experiencer.
Also we experience our being or the sense of "I" always in the 'present' because
existence is eternally in the present, past and future being mere thoughts in
mind. (one cannot experience past or future but always experiences the present).
This itself is the proof that time is a mere concept of mind there being only
the experience of the present moment (nothing else can ever be experienced -
than the present moment!). But as always, words are an obstacle (being derived
from duality) when it comes to dealing with singularity. The other point is
about the "I" I don't think the "I" sense (i.e the experience of BEING or
conscious) is the result of some electro-chemical combination. The E-C
combination only helps localise the "I" sense to a body and thus leads to the
idea "I am THIS" instead of the unallyoed and simple "I AM" which exists ever as
the present, without the need for a limiting identity.
These are three (what Kant calls) antimonies (i hope i am right). If you
posit a time for creation, there is the question of what was before that (we
never question about what happened before big bang and why it should occur at
all. No bang would be better!). Similarly we cannot conceive of an end of time
(what happens after the end of time). Similarly we cannot think of a finite
space nor can we imagine infinity. Same goes with causation. Who caused the
first cause (who created God). This is because space, time and causation are
modes of perception (like X, Y and Z axes of the mind) and they are not out
there but are the medium through which mind perceives and hence the antimonies
(according to Kant). The reason there are laws and they are obeyed by the
universe is that it is the nature of the mind (causation is nothing but law
governing the sequence of events or actions). So all of science is saved !
(otherwise there is no inherent reason for the universe to obey any law. It
could simply be chaos - why should there be order?)
I have heard the speech of Lawrence Krauss one more time as I found it fascinating and I found some common thread to comment upon. So that there is no confusion about his speech, I think he is a first rate scientist and an excellent speaker. So, what I am about to say is not about him or his speech but about a general philosophy of the whole idea of 'knowledge'.
All intellectuals, whether they are philosophers,scientists or wall street experts have one thing in common.They all have one ( or some times two ) facts and enormous amount of uncertainty and confusion to deal with and they project a simplistic solution to a gigantic problem. Let me illustrate my point. He showed a picture of the inside of proton to indicate the dark matter inside the proton. In actual reality, that is NOT a picture of proton. It is only an artist impression to explain a certain idea. No one as of today has been actually able to take a photograph of an atom ( Except recently, I saw a very fuzzy picture of what is most likely to be an atom), let alone a proton. The idea of dark matter is real. But how it exists and how it changed to real matter is only a conjecture. His suggestion that ultimately, only our galaxy will exist and all the other galaxies will disappear is a wildest speculation at best. In general, the issue in all the problems like this is the prediction based on a few facts. How does one predict what the stock market will do ? There are a number of theories, number of measuring parameters and so on. But ultimately, one can only vaguely predict what it might do and definitely not exactly say what it actually does. The one thing I do not like ( however humorous it may be) is one making fun of another branch of knowledge. Both scientists as well as religious people poke fun at each other as if they have all the answers and that the others are dumb. Human intellect is extremely fertile. Beyond the Newtonian world, nothing is certain. Lot of speculation, supposition and guess work is part of the game. For all the talk, how much scientists know what really happens in the submicroscopic state ?
In my opinion, there is enormous amount of mystery in this universe. It is way way beyond thinking of any individual or group of individuals. With the extremely limited knowledge which humans possess, to make prediction what the universe is all about and that we have all the answers of how it all came about and how it is going to end is not very intelligent to say the least. Like every other intellectual, Cosmologists also use their limited data to project gigantic answers! I will give a dilemma I had ( Which is not solved even to day - though each side claim that they know the answers). When I was doing research, I had to deal with liquid state. Solid state and gaseous state is fairly easy to deal with because in the first case atoms are positioned with a long range order and in the later case, they are completely at random and hence simple Boltzman statistics can be used to explain most of the phenomenon associated with that state. But liquid state is extremely difficult since it follows neither. Prof. Long proposed that liquid state is nothing but condensed gas and derived most elegant equations to prove his point. Obviously, he used liquid Nitrogen, liquid oxygen etc. to prove that his theory is right. Prof. Ubbelhode on the other hand, proposed that liquids are like broken solids and once again derived equations to suite his theory. Naturally, he used molten metals to prove that his theory is right. In reality, ordinary liquids like water does not follow either of the suggestions and as of today, there is no theory which can explain the liquid state . I had to steer clear of both and use what is known as Flicker Cluster Theory ( which is an empirical theory) because my main purpose was to some how get my degree rather than prove which theory is correct.
Post a Comment