Replies

I have always thought of space as a potential, not as a cause.

I don't know what that means.

The universe still has to have a source

I disagree. "Source" implies causality, which implies time. But time is a property of the universe, and a malleable, manipulable one at that. Time exists in the universe; the universe does not exist in time.

But what you boys are driving at is Heidegger's fundamental question of philosophy: why does anything exist, instead of just nothing? In my opinion, the only meaningful resolution is that of Rand, who declared "Existence exists" to be an axiom.

If you are indeed a physicist I would like to get another physicists imput on quantom events. Astrophysicist Dr Hugh Ross argues that quantom physics is dependent on probabilites for events to take place within certain intervals of time, hence without time no events take place. Based on my undergraduate study, and reading of Paul Davies and Hawking I understand this point of view. However, since the math is for beyond my comprehension I simply have to take one's word for it.

By the way I'm not one to except uncaused events. While quantom mechanics is a great mystery, I believe some time in the future we will understand the apparent contradictions assoiciated with it. Maybe extra-dimmensions. In my humble view science is finished if there are really uncaused effects.

Source" implies causality, which implies time. But time is a property of the universe, and a malleable, manipulable one at that. Time exists in the universe; the universe does not exist in time.

You're right that time is a property of the universe, which started up with the universe. But being a property of the universe it is therefore not nothing. But I used the word 'source' because the issue is not merely the "beginning" of the universe but the source of it. I am trying to emphasize that it couldn't pop into existence out of absolute nothing. Even if it has always existed with no actual beginning is beside the point because it has to have a source of origin even if it doesn't have a starting point in time. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but a quantum vacuum is not nothing, but a state of physical conditions with mathamatically describable properties.

Cordially,

…who declared "Existence exists" to be an axiom.

I agree whole heartily with this. You can argue until the cows come home whether the universe or the creator has first claim on existence, but this is where it stops.

Next point:

Nimdoc (#223) I have always thought of space as a potential, not as a cause.
Physicist (#224):I don't know what that means.

I will try clarify my statement since this is why I bumped you to this thread.

Let me quote from Diamond (#211);
A quantum vacuum is not nothing, and fluctuations in a quantum vacuum do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

I agree that the quantum vacuum is something, it is space (whatever that is). I agree that space is required for a quantum fluctuation to exist, but does the existence of space require that the quantum fluctuations exist? A given volume of space can potentially have quantum fluctuations, but is it required to? Can this requirement be labeled "a cause" of the fluctuations?

I have heard it said that if physical laws do not prohibit an event, it will occur, eventually. For example, based on quantum probabilities, it is possible to compute the probability of a beer can spontaneously falling off the table to floor. The answer involves some huge number of zeros, but the possibility is there. Does this "potential to fall" constitute a cause?

Thanks for your thoughts on this. I realize the answer to this may dwell more on the semantics of the word “cause”, rather than a definitive statement that can be rigorously defended, but give it your best shot.