Discussion with Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss.
Not exactly sure what you're replying to... The title of this thread is that of the youtube video, in which Dawkins and Krauss were discussing the book "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing".
I've heard attempts at explanations at where the first matter/energy came from and to me they come up short. But that doesn't mean that the only explanation is some god or gods did it.
That just complicates things further. If a god or gods created the universe where did it/they come from? From nothing? Always there? Now we're back to the same problem.
Perhaps what's missing here is the notion that matter and empty space arise mutually. As Write4U pointed out, there was never solely "nothing." It's said by astrophysicists that the "Big Bang" occurred in 10-dimensional hyperspace (or 11 if you adhere to M-theory). So, that perhaps the singularity is a whitehole which sprung forth both energy and empty space or dark matter from the larger multiverse. The plasma that condensed and gave birth to the stars which condensed further into supernovae/hypernovae that allowed planets to arise, and so on and so forth until finally you have our dear selves.
Now, to account for consciousness, I've heard someone use the idea of panpsychism or what's also called panexperientialism. That's the idea that all matter, in some sense, possesses consciousness. Now, of course, a rock wouldn't have the type of consciousness we're familiar with, but perhaps it has, to use an Indian term, a kind of "turiya" consciousness, a pure consciousness void of emotion, volition, self-awareness, etc. I mean, I offer that just as an example, but of course the rock wouldn't experience emotion, because neuroscientists attribute that to human neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, etc. which the rock obviously does not possess.
Anyway, I think if we're going to discuss the topic of "Something from Nothing," then it's important to account for consciousness as well as to have the "big picture." An interesting book I've read on the topic of the nascency of consciousness is Julian Jaynes book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind," and I just offer that as suggestion to anyone who's intrigued on the topic of "consciousness."
A video you may be interested in, Write4U, and anyone else who finds this topic intriguing. Ramesh Balsekar, a recently deceased Hindu of India, discusses the cyclical model of the universe here, but you've got to pay close attention because he has an accent and no teeth!
I read QuantumBrahman in its entirey, thank you for that link. You know, ever since I was introduced to eastern thought through the work of Alan Watts, the chaos of M-theory, the quantum vacuum, etc., has sort of become a little more clear.
I think the difference is between eastern philosophy and science or physics is that the scientist or physicist attempts to grasp the universe intellectually through a series of concepts while the Hindu sage understands through a direct intuitive experience; a colossal altered state of consciousness that is devoid of concepts, but in order come back and discuss it, they must use concepts such as "Brahman" to articulate it.
That's another aspect of these things that has always fascinated me. The ancient sages who realized what science is just now coming to terms with in the 20th and 21st century. In Hinduism, it's referred to as "moksha" or "samadhi," in Buddhism, "nirvana," and in Zen, they call it "satori." It is essentially an experience of or glimpse of what they call "Brahman" or what an M-theorist might call "11 dimensional hyperspace."
More contemporary it's been referred to as "cosmic consciousness" or "ego death" by people like Alan Watts, Richard M. Bucke, or Terence McKenna. Dr. Rick Strassman had an interesting speculation in his book "DMT: The Spirit Molecule." He believed that what meditation may be is a natural induction of endogenous N,N-DMT, a naturally occurring neurotransmitter that also holds the title of being the most powerful entheogenic compound known to exist in nature, there it is right behind our eyebrows.
Likewise, the ancient shamans who took the entheogenic route, whether it be psilocybin or DMT admixtures such as "ayahuasca" which use dates back thousands of years, glimpsed essentially the same insight. I want to leave a few links here if you also find interest in these things…
Here's a couple that go over this "potentiality" or "permutations" that you emphasized. This higher dimensional source in which all these possibilities are, in a sense, "already there," they exist in this pure potential and Rob Bryanton at the 10thdim YouTube channel believes that field of "pure potential" may be where we draw our "free will" from, even if everything in the material universe is "predetermined," and that's another facet of interest when discussing this stuff, the philosophical debate of free will vs. predeterminism or compatibilism.
Very interesting and entertaining video.
I think the requirement of a "beginning" is a product of our psychology as human animals, just as primitive peoples would personify the world around them - simple mechanisms formed from our personal experiences as intelligent pack-animals. Outside of our perception of reality, there may be no requirement for a beginning. Just as time will always march on and on, so it may have always been before. For all we know, there may well have been a "big crunch" before the "big bang", and many more cycles before. Just as we used to think that our galaxy was the limit of the universe, so we may also find that the "big bang" was not unique - there may be another level of system above what we know now as "the universe", just as we found other galaxies when we thought our own was unique. Unfortunately, we may be too far away from any such thing to detect or measure in any meaningful way, but maybe a mathematical model could suggest such a thing?
I'm not a theoretical physicist, so I have no idea, but the concept seems plausible to me.
I believe that there has never been "nothing". It seems an all-too-human simplification on par with "there must have been a designer".