Much Ado about Nothing
21/02/12 05:50
The Shakespeare play has a rather simple plot line. There are two couples. Benedick and Beatrice both talk about how much they dislike romance, love and marriage. They also dislike each other. Claudio and Hero are so much in love that they can’t find the words to say to each other. With a lot of gossip and rumor and a little overhearing of conversations, Benedick and Beatrice are tricked into expressing their love and Claudio rejects Hero. The Constable uncovers the trickery of Don John, the villain, who is captured and the two couples marry and presumably live happily ever after.
It is a fun little play. Its title is more famous than the play itself. The phrase is often used when people get unnecessarily upset over things, when rumors are proven false, and when too much attention is given to a small problem.
The nature of nothing – or perhaps the existence of anything at all – has been a question that people have pondered from the beginnings of human consciousness. Why do things exist? Is there a place, or was there a time when nothing existed at all? It is the question of cosmologists in every generation.
The first account of creation in Genesis comments on the question in the second verse: “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” It starts to describe nothing: “without form and void, and darkness . . .” but can’t quite describe such a thing as total nothingness and so comes up with something over which the Spirit of God was moving. There is no particular description of “the face of the waters,” but the use of the word “waters” implies something that is known and recognizable.
By the second century of the Christian era, the discussion of what exists before creation was common among theologians. Two Latin phrases illustrate two sides of the argument. “Creatio ex nihilo” posits that all that exists came from nothing.
“Creatio ex material” is the theory that there was some pre-existent, eternal matter.
Physicists have returned to that argument in modern cosmology theory. Lawrence Krauss, professor at Arizona State University, has a new book, “A Universe From Nothing” in which he states that science may be able, at some time in the near future, to explain how our universe came from nothingness. And then he hedges his bet a bit by stating that if not nothingness, then something very close to it. If you understand the Universe as the combination of sub-atomic particles, you end up with the question: “Where did the particles come from?”
Theologians have no problem with naming God as the creative force that is at the origin of the existence of everything. Secular physicists in our time seem to chafe at the use of a concept of God. They seem to want to declare their atheism. Christopher Hitchens book, “God is Not Great,” Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion,” and Stephen Hawking’s “The Grand Design,” are all relatively recent books by physicists that try to explain the universe without God. I am not a physicist. My mathematical skills are limited. But I find the arguments of these cosmologists to be unconvincing. In fact, I think it is a stretch to claim that they have presented anything that is very new in their books. To use the Latin terminology, they have written “creatio ex material.” They have added some sophisticated observations to some very ancient ideas.
Dr. Krauss tries to push the argument into new territory. What he claims is that modern science has come up with a better way of explaining nothingness. What has for millennia been a vague philosophical concept now is directly observable according to Krauss. He describes three kinds of nothingness. The first is empty space. It worked for ancients who used only their eyes to scan the night skies. It certainly appears that there is a lot of emptiness between the stars. However, scientists now know that the space is filled with energy. There are measurable electromagnetic fields and the movements of stars, planets and other things in the universe has led physicists to theorize that there are “virtual particles” and “borrowed energy” that explain some of the randomness of the universe. (Remember, I’m not a physicist and I don’t always explain these things as well as a trained scientist.)
The second “nothing” is not directly observable. This, according to Krauss, is what exists when there is no space and no time. He describes the universe as a “bubble of space-time” that pops into existence, like a bubble in boiling water. This theoretical, though not observable nothingness still conforms to the laws of physics according to Krauss.
Krauss goes on to posit a third and deeper nothingness where even the laws of physics do not exist. I’m not sure that he has succeeded in making the argument that the third “nothing” is distinct from the second “nothing.” At least the existence of the laws of physics where there is no time and space seems to be pure speculation. It seems possible to me that Krauss’ second and third nothingness are the same. Krauss, however, wants to make an argument for another popular theory of modern cosmology: multiverse. The basic theory is that there can exist multiple universes that may or may not conform to the same laws of physics.
These physical cosmologists, Hitchens, Dawkins and Hawking, and perhaps Krauss as well, go so far into speculative physics that their claim that science is based on actual observation seems to be at best questionable. Their argument that God and religion are human inventions would almost make sense if they didn’t seem to be incapable of seeing that their so called “laws” of physics are every bit an invention of human intellectual endeavor. The very thing they criticize about religion is inherent in what they call science.
From my point of view, it looks like they are engaged in theology, but they can’t bring themselves to use the word God. I’ve heard a four-year-old ask, “What happened before I was born?” and a six year old ask, “What was before God?” The questions are not significantly different from those of modern cosmologists.
During the Middle Ages, theology was dubbed “the Queen of the Sciences.” In more recent times, Physics has been called the “King of the Sciences.” It seems to me that it may all be much ado about nothing. Even Shakespeare understood that you can’t have the king without the queen.
The nature of nothing – or perhaps the existence of anything at all – has been a question that people have pondered from the beginnings of human consciousness. Why do things exist? Is there a place, or was there a time when nothing existed at all? It is the question of cosmologists in every generation.
The first account of creation in Genesis comments on the question in the second verse: “The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.” It starts to describe nothing: “without form and void, and darkness . . .” but can’t quite describe such a thing as total nothingness and so comes up with something over which the Spirit of God was moving. There is no particular description of “the face of the waters,” but the use of the word “waters” implies something that is known and recognizable.
By the second century of the Christian era, the discussion of what exists before creation was common among theologians. Two Latin phrases illustrate two sides of the argument. “Creatio ex nihilo” posits that all that exists came from nothing.
“Creatio ex material” is the theory that there was some pre-existent, eternal matter.
Physicists have returned to that argument in modern cosmology theory. Lawrence Krauss, professor at Arizona State University, has a new book, “A Universe From Nothing” in which he states that science may be able, at some time in the near future, to explain how our universe came from nothingness. And then he hedges his bet a bit by stating that if not nothingness, then something very close to it. If you understand the Universe as the combination of sub-atomic particles, you end up with the question: “Where did the particles come from?”
Theologians have no problem with naming God as the creative force that is at the origin of the existence of everything. Secular physicists in our time seem to chafe at the use of a concept of God. They seem to want to declare their atheism. Christopher Hitchens book, “God is Not Great,” Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion,” and Stephen Hawking’s “The Grand Design,” are all relatively recent books by physicists that try to explain the universe without God. I am not a physicist. My mathematical skills are limited. But I find the arguments of these cosmologists to be unconvincing. In fact, I think it is a stretch to claim that they have presented anything that is very new in their books. To use the Latin terminology, they have written “creatio ex material.” They have added some sophisticated observations to some very ancient ideas.
The second “nothing” is not directly observable. This, according to Krauss, is what exists when there is no space and no time. He describes the universe as a “bubble of space-time” that pops into existence, like a bubble in boiling water. This theoretical, though not observable nothingness still conforms to the laws of physics according to Krauss.
Krauss goes on to posit a third and deeper nothingness where even the laws of physics do not exist. I’m not sure that he has succeeded in making the argument that the third “nothing” is distinct from the second “nothing.” At least the existence of the laws of physics where there is no time and space seems to be pure speculation. It seems possible to me that Krauss’ second and third nothingness are the same. Krauss, however, wants to make an argument for another popular theory of modern cosmology: multiverse. The basic theory is that there can exist multiple universes that may or may not conform to the same laws of physics.
These physical cosmologists, Hitchens, Dawkins and Hawking, and perhaps Krauss as well, go so far into speculative physics that their claim that science is based on actual observation seems to be at best questionable. Their argument that God and religion are human inventions would almost make sense if they didn’t seem to be incapable of seeing that their so called “laws” of physics are every bit an invention of human intellectual endeavor. The very thing they criticize about religion is inherent in what they call science.
From my point of view, it looks like they are engaged in theology, but they can’t bring themselves to use the word God. I’ve heard a four-year-old ask, “What happened before I was born?” and a six year old ask, “What was before God?” The questions are not significantly different from those of modern cosmologists.
During the Middle Ages, theology was dubbed “the Queen of the Sciences.” In more recent times, Physics has been called the “King of the Sciences.” It seems to me that it may all be much ado about nothing. Even Shakespeare understood that you can’t have the king without the queen.