Ex nihilo nihil fit

Lol, my first SD topic.


Ex nihilo nihil fit, or nothing comes from nothing, is a concept that traces back to the ancient greek era, so this is nothing new. As it says, nothing can come out of nothing, and conversely, something cannot turn into nothing and vice versa.

As a physics student I understand this mainly as the principle of conversation of energy and not much more...but people seem to drag this concept into much broader areas like god, the world as a whole etc.

So, what do you think of this? How do you personally understand this concept and to what extent do you assume its truth?

Well, like you said, scientifically it can be translated as meaning matter cannot be created (and also destroyed).

I would think this argument would be used to justify ones belief in a Creator, which I suppose I must admit is a big part of the foundation of my deistic values.

But don't you think that this concept is an alternative to the concept creatio ex nihilo that's attributed to god? I mean, if we go by the concept then it must mean that the world must have always existed before, and not created out of nothing as supporters of the idea of god claim it. So I don't think this serve as any support to the idea of god. If anything, it contradicts it.

edit: lol, I don't agree with nothing is something either. If nothing is something, then it's not really nothing.

Oh, well: sleep-deprivation FTL. You are correct.

But let me say this: nothing is something ;)

From what I understand, part of what makes God, well, God, is the ability to create something out of nothing. God is a being that defies the laws of the universe, possibly because God created the universe and the laws of it. God and only God could create something out of nothing. So, only God existed (and part of what makes Him great is that he existed without a creator, always existing), and He made something out of nothing. Or something like that.

To me, neither idea makes complete sense. It's hard to imagine a being that exists outside of time, so to speak, and it's hard to imagine that the universe has always existed. Something had to begin at some point, right?

There is an additional factor involved with "the unmoved mover" arguments. Namely, there _cannot_ be an infinite chain of events. Most people forget that part, kinda like the way most people forget about the caste system and dharma when they talk about karma.

Check out Aristotle (who qualifies as an ancient greek) and Aquinas, both of whom used similar philosophies. Personally, I find the unmoved mover arguments kinda weak, because there is no evidence or reasoning that an infinite chain of events is impossible (the philosophy just says its impossible, but doesn't give a reason why its impossible). Uncertainty principle also seems to suggest that some shit happens with no real explanation (and therefore, the entire "everything comes from something" is in doubt).

This topic pretty much made my mind think alot about the concept "infinity" and "nothing".

I do think that there is a beginning for the Universe, but before the beginning of the universe, isnt there something that creates the beginning of the universe? Either that is god or some other being/universe. God is "something" and so is the latter, this can go on and on, just like fatman said about the infinite events.

So the Ex nihilo nihil fit concept is pretty much talking about Infinity events to me, everything keeps going backwards infinitly.

Warning, may seem like crap talk


Crazy I know, but thats the only thing I can think of that is "predictable" rather then the infinite search for a beginning.

i unno...

and I leave it at that. Our logic says it's impossible, but we just don't fucking know.

I also like how people say that god is the ultimate cause, but then they make special exceptions for him, like not applying the same logic to him as they would for everything else (infinite regression? nope, god is exempt). Even if something had to create the universe, why the fuck does it have to be god (maybe it's some unknown force we still have yet to discover)? Meh, this is just another bullshit argument to justify their bullshit beliefs.

Is it a coincidence that the answer to the thread is much shorter than my god rant? I think not.

In all myths and religions, the creation story always begin with nothing like Greek mythology has Chaos and Judeo-Christianic has the "vast waters". But also, it's always either something started within nothing or there was a bit of something outside nothingness that started to create everything.

In science, it is said that before the big bang, there was nothing, except for some gases (hydrogen or helium and something? I forgot.) Those gases started to swirl and compress to the center until enough pressure was made to make it explode. Out of which came out light, heat, and sound, in which remnants still exist as static in radio and tv signals.

Even in the empty spaces we move around in, there exists air, gas, tiny solid particles, vapour, etc. In the said nothing, there was something, therefore there is no such thing as nothing.

Just wanna expand the idea on nothingness.

What you actually described is the creation of stars from nebulae, not the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is that, before the Big Bang, everything in the universe existed in a point singularity, implying that it was a "mass" of energy. I use the term mass loosely as point singularities cannot have mass. Likewise, as we have learned from our study of photons, mass-less objects exist outside of time. And as all matter was created in the Big Bang, so to was time "created". Though a more rational explanation would be observed. Anyway, without anything to act upon the primordial energy. Just look at photons, without outside forces to react with, it will continue to move forever without ever changing or loosing energy. That means that without a primary actor the Big Bang, and by association, Fakku would never have been created. Thus bringing us to the OP's ex nihilo nihil fit. As of now science has no definitive answer as to what caused the Big Bang.

Aside from the untestable god and "universal bounce" string theories, I happen to prefer Einstein's theory that uses the most simple explanation. Time is not linear but conical. I'm not quite sure on the conical part, but the explanation is sound. Time is not linear, and an effect can actually "predate" the cause. Because we happen to assume time is linear due to the fact that that is how we view it, we ignore the possibility that energy can flow in any temporal direction. Since pure energy exists outside of time, but in the same space as us, it is quite logical to see it move outside of time as well. Therefore, it is highly logical to the state that the Big Bang caused the Big Bang. There, the long keyed version of my view on nothing is created from nothing. It's not complete but you should hopefully get the picture.

I am probably starting to make less and less sense... I need to go to bed, I have work in the morning.

First of all I believe that Ex nihilo nihil fit means "out nothing nothing fit". "nusquam adveho ex nusquam" means nothing comes from nothing. Secondly I don't think that everyone who believes in God believes the earth was created in 7 days and from nothing. Also it's true that matter cannot be created or destroyed, however we don't that for sure it's very possible we simply don't have the knowledge or technology to do so. Much like long distance/interstellar space travel. It is most likely possible but it is impossible with our current level of knowledge and technology.

As a wise man once said "What we think and believe to be impossible is very likely possible, but it is simply beyond our realm of comprehension and understanding."

I personally believe Time is really non-existent matter., but a reference for a sequence of events. I think time did not start at the Big Bang, but rather we, humans, have appointed the Big Bang as the farthest point we could imagine time of the past.

As for the Big Bang, it really was like a giant supernova which scattered material to make galaxies, stars, etc. (source: National Geographic. Ask the experts, I just watch TV.) I can imagine the Big Bang as the destruction of a TITANIC star, which gave birth to stars, which will in turn create more material to make more stars when it dies. Rinse repeat process. Never ending.

Back to nothingness, all I could say that there is really no such thing as nothing, but only things we are yet to define, like the time before the big bang or ether.

I think the same way too, but it's hard to explain the effects of special and general relativity without thinking of time as some kind of real existence...

Kinda, but still time never materializes in anyway or form, but rather matter changes in time.

Disclaimer: I'm no physicist nor scientist. I'm your everyday Joe, with added knowledge on Philosophy, Theology, Architecture, World History, Macrobiology, some Astronomy, Anime, and porn.

No, there is no creator; Creator presupposes that something was created--if it is true that something that exists can not be created nor destroyed, it has always existed. Anything that has always existed is considered outside of time, eternal, can not have an "ending;" the universe has always existed, and with it, matter.

I think the term "creator" refers to what the being does, not where it came from. If a being outside of time created the universe, we could call that being a "creator," because it "created" us.

Or am I not understanding you?

Correct!