Dear Yuyutsu,

I wonder how you came to the conclusion that the English word for “the subtlest material …” mentioned in the Upanishads is “space”, which in physics is different from what is understood by quantum vacuum. However, I think “the subtlest material from which grosser materials emerged” might indeed be retrospectively seen as what in QF is referred to as quantum vacuum and its fluctuations.

Dear Banjo,

Your quote describing quantum vacuum shows indeed that it is far from NOTHING in the sense of absence of anything.I cannot say more about this assumed state of the physical universe since I am not familiar with (and would probably not understand) the physics and mathematics necessary for critical assessment of available results.

If a physicist, or anybody, tries to answer the philosophical question “why there is something rather than nothing” from within physics, then it simply means he/she does not understand the question. Physicists who “are actively seeking to solve the mystery of how the universe was created” seek to explain how one physical state (e.g. quantum vacuum) changes into another. Similarly, you can seek to explain how waves on a lake were created (a pebble was thrown in). Creation in this sense has nothing to do with creation religion, or e.g. NNS, are talking about. Creation in the religious sense refers to the raison d'etre of everything, including the framework (space-time, mathematics etc) within which the physicist is doing his seeking.

There are philosophically unsophisticated believers who think they can prove God’s existence from within science, and there are philosophically unsophisticated unbelievers who think science can support their unbelief.

Dear Banjo,

While I aspire to be worthy of the description "religious", according to the narrow and technical OED definition, whatever be its worth: "A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods", you should classify my person as an atheist, not even an agnostic like yourself, because you do not share my belief (and as I understand it, George's too) that "No objective reality of God will ever be indisputably established".

So you do not share my first conviction, but you seem to share my second, that anything that can be objectively verified is not worthy of worship (that you also choose not to worship at all, is a separate issue). This is good, though Not_Now.Soon wouldn't agree with us.

Regarding the word "thing", I already reiterated my statement: "Existence is for objects: had God existed, then that would reduce Him(/Her/It) to being just an object". To provide some context, respectable ladies often complain: "Stop treating me like an object", in other words, "I am someone, not some-thing": a true gentleman wouldn't treat a lady as an object, so I am surprised why Not_Now.Soon, undoubtedly a lover of God, would struggle to treat God as an object - only objects can be proven objectively to exist!

Regarding the odd idea that "a supposition created the world", you seem to commit a logical error: Suppose a child believes that there is a lion in their yard, in fact it's only a kitten but the child does not know it, so they believe that if they leave the house, that lion would eat them - Perhaps there are, but I personally don't know any child who believes that "If I leave the house, a kitten will eat me", nor an adult who believes that "a supposition created the world". Likewise, I don't know of anyone who worships a supposition/hypothesis.

Dear George,

I am impressed with your reply to Banjo.

The subtlest matter mentioned in the Upanishads is Space ('Akasha'), but I have not concluded that Quantum-Vacuum and Akasha are necessarily identical, that is because between Akasha and energy there are yet another two elements, grosser than Akasha but subtler than energy, called Air ('Vayu') and Fire ('Agni'), so I am not knowledgeable enough to tell which of the three is equivalent to Quantum-Vacuum.

.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« Your quote describing quantum vacuum shows indeed that it is far from NOTHING in the sense of absence of anything »
.

Well, … not all that far, George.

Nothing, of course means no thing, and anything means any thing.

It is, however, interesting to note that, according to the OED :

"Thing" means an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.

And "object" is defined as :

1. A material thing that can be seen and touched

2. (Philosophy) A thing external to the thinking mind or subject

You also wrote :

« If a physicist, or anybody, tries to answer the philosophical question “why there is something rather than nothing” from within physics, then it simply means he/she does not understand the question »

Perhaps the reason he or she does not understand is that it is only half the question, the other half being “why there is nothing rather than something”. Both something and nothing co-exist in the universe and seem to be complementary, each, perhaps, dependant on the other for its existence – the quantum vacuum being a prime example. It is neither completely nothing nor completely something but partly both at the same time – if it weren’t, perhaps there would be no such “thing” as a quantum vacuum.

However, unless I am mistaken, there is more of nothing than there is of something in a quantum vacuum – just as there is in the universe.

You observe :

« There are philosophically unsophisticated believers who think they can prove God’s existence from within science, and there are philosophically unsophisticated unbelievers who think science can support their unbelief »

I consider that research relating to the existence or non-existence of God is essentially the domain of the neuroscientists (or neurobiologists) working in association with psychologists, sociologists, philosophers and, perhaps, other specialists as need be.

It is certainly not the domain of physicists involved in research relating to the origins of the universe.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

On God, atheists, agnostics and worship :

I consider that there is no God until “proven” otherwise – which I don’t rule out. That does not make me an agnostic – defined by the OED as :

« A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God »

I reject the appellation “atheist” because I think it’s silly (if not stupid) defining myself by reference to something that I consider does not exist.

I am neither believer, agnostic, nor atheist. I am just an ordinary person.

You wrote :

« Regarding the word "thing", I already reiterated my statement: "Existence is for objects … »

That’s not the commonly accepted definition of existence Yuyutsu. Once again, please quote the source of your definition. If it is your own invention, why did you decide to limit it to things or objects ? If you don’t like it, don’t do that.

Regarding your story of the child, the adults and what they all believe is a lion in the yard – but which, in fact, is only a kitten :

The problem is that they are all absolutely convinced it is a lion. At no point do they realise it is only a kitten. In their minds, there is no doubt whatsoever, it really is a lion. There is nothing anybody can say or do to persuade them that it is only a kitten.

So to avoid them all being eaten by what they are absolutely convinced is a lion, they decide to sacrifice their only child by killing him or her painlessly with drugs and offering him/her to the lion so that the rest of them can escape safely from the house.

They run out onto the street without looking back and never return. They live the rest of their lives peacefully and, one by one, die of old age – never realising it was only a kitten.

That is the end of the story of the kitten they all firmly believed was a lion.

.

Reverse entropy is a paper tiger but science needs faith when it sees entropy.