Katczinsky

I was in a debate earlier about the paradox of God supposedly being able to 'exist' while at the same time being objectified from existence (in order to create it). And it got me thinking.

The way I understand physics, is that the universe is expanding and with it space/time. I was wondering how exactly space/time expands into nothingness, or the absence of space-time. Because nothingness isn't some 'space' to move around in, as it is negated by the fact that it is nothingness...or no space at all. So adding onto the debate on 'how can God be objectified from existence', how can the universe expand existence into non-existence? And for that matter, how can two (or more) different existences exist as their own separate totalities (parallel worlds, separate universes, etc.) when there is "nothing" to separate them? Two objects can't be seen parallel to one another in a void of 'nothingness' (because nothingness isn't a void but rather no space or time existing).

I was just wondering if any of you thinkers out there had any thoughts on this.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

Katczinsky

No thoughts?

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

Katczinsky

Hmmm...okay then...

Figured I would have triggered a response considering I could have potentially angered both theists and scientists...oh well.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

paradoxymoron

It sounds interesting but I don't know much about physics, quantum or otherwise. I could recommend "The Elegant Universe". It's supposed to be a great intro to string theory and gets into things similar to what you're talking about.

tyreay

I think there is a very real possibility of multiple universes spread out through space. In which case our universe would be expanding into the space between universes. This would make the nothingness you spoke of just empty space. Time in this emptiness would exist, it just wouldn't matter. (Kind of like the tree falling in the empty forest with no one to hear its sound)

__________________
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour

There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville

Katczinsky

Yes I believe this is a common proposal to this paradox.

However, if I'm not mistaken, the universe is considered a totality in and of itself. Thereby allegedly inherently existing. How can something be a totality (separated from all other existences) if there is "nothing" to separate them?

Unless of course the multiverse proposal doesn't suggest the universe is a totality surrounded by other totalities (universes), but instead universes would be separated by space time like galaxies are separated in our universe. The only way that would work is an infinite field of space-time.

I understand this (and personally it's something I believe is most likely...but it very most probably has its own set of paradoxes), but from what I learned in science class; the universe is supposed to be expanding space-time with it. I guess I'm just wondering if there was anyone that is more knowledgeable in astronomy or physics that could help me out.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

tyreay

Well, you know I'm no astronomer or a Dr. of physics, but I think that time is relative to movement. For instance, our undrstanding of time is based on the relovutions of the earth and our orbit around the sun and our galactic trip around the universe. Time in empty space would only be gaugable if we apply some type of time keeping to it. Since it is empty this would be difficult. Any other planet or galaxy would be subject to its own set of rules to gauge time. The seperation of these galaxies could be gauged using our concept of time but at some point that time gauge would change.
Of course this is just theory as we can't see past the evidence of the big bang, the edge of our own universe.
My own beliefs are lacking a nothingness. Empty space is just empty, IMO.
Perhaps we can get some opinions, from the nice folks here, that do believe in God and have put some thought into the paradox of something being created, through God's will, from nothing.
Or possibly from someome with a astronomy education.

__________________
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong. ~Richard Armour

There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle. ~Alexis de Tocqueville

hevusa

Not sure if I grasp this completely but...

couldn't it be like when we thought the world was flat or the sun revolved around us???

Maybe what we think is everything, our universe, is just a part of something even larger. So what we perceive as the universe growing larger into "nothingness" is actually growing into that larger picture (which might remain constant??)???????

Lots of question marks there

__________________
--- help me Instant Runoff Voting, you're my only hope ---

"There is no such thing as laziness. Laziness is only lack of incentive." Norman Reider, MD

Morality is not contingent on religion to exist. Therefore religion only detracts from the purity of morality.

fxashun

I like your answer...We go from our own being, to familiy, to neighborhood, town, state, country, continent, planet, solar system, galaxy, galaxy cluster, universe, ???

Who knows what we consider our universe might be a part of.

__________________

Katczinsky

And of course, going the other way from 'our own being': organs, tissue, chemicals, cells, atoms, sub-atomic particles, their particles (quarks, etc.), ????

But the further we go we never see 'nothingness', because...well...it's nothing. The most plausible (under our current scientific and logical understandings) is that it probably is a component of something bigger (multiverse, etc.), but then again our understanding is greatly limited in terms of the cosmos. But, when scientists say 'it' (the universe as a totality of all things existing) is expanding into 'nothingness', I think they really mean nothingness (because they're talking about the expansion of space-time). I just think I want to know the reasoning going on there from someone more apt in physics or astronomy.

My guess is that, 'it' (as a positive space-time existence) just 'is' and is expanding; not into anything but just is...well..growing. But this is a very ill-informed guess. Perhaps it is possible for something to expand from nothing. For example, I remember listening to a philosopher named Alan Watts where he attempted to explain the concept of something from nothing. He was talking about an analogy of how sound comes from nothing (absence of sound), or in this case, silence. Without the understanding of silence, one cannot have sound. When I say something, it just pops out from nothing. Likewise, existence comes from nothing; look around and just 'pop' there it is. Without nothing maybe something can't be? For example, '1' has no value if it is not superimposed over the concept that there could be '0'? I don't know...

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72