Creation from Nothing?

Paul Davies writes: "...the application of quantum mechanics is normally restricted to atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles. Quantum effects are usually negligible for macroscopic objects. Recall that at the heart of quantum physics lies Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that all measurable quantities (e.g., position, momentum, energy) are subject to unpredictable fluctuations in their values. This unpredictability implies that the microworld is indeterministic: to use Einstein's picturesque phraseology, God plays dice with the universe. Therefore, quantum events are not determined absolutely by preceding causes. Although the probability of a given event (e.g., the radioactive decay of an atomic nucleus) is fixed by the theory, the actual outcome of a particular quantum process is unknown and, even in principle, unknowable.

By weakening the link between cause and effect, quantum mechanics provides a subtle way for us to circumvent the origin-of-the-universe problem. If a way can be found to permit the universe to come into existence from nothing (emphasis mine) as the result of a quantum fluctuation, then no laws of physics would be violated. In other words, viewed through the eyes of a quantum physicist, the spontaneous appearance of a universe is not such a surprise, because physical objects are spontaneously appearing all the time--without well-defined causes--in the quantum microworld. The quantum physicist need no more appeal to a supernatural act to bring the universe into being than to explain why a radioactive nucleus decayed when it did." (Paul Davies, The Mind of God. N.Y.: Touchstone books, 1992)

The microworld is indeterministic, but in no way does it follow that quantum events are not determined absolutely by preceding causes. The link between cause and effect is in no way weakened and cannot be so weakened by science, at least without destroying the very possibility of science. And so there is no subtle way at all to circumvent the origin of the universe problem.

First, the nature of cause and effect is a metaphysical question, that is, a question for the philosophy of being. Science cannot question the principle of causality without threatening its very foundation. Nor can empiriological science begin to tell us what it means for one thing to cause another, that is, for something to cause or bring about an effect. As Hume demonstrated very clearly, from a strictly empirical point of view, cause and effect have no objective basis whatsoever. The cause and effect relationship is not perceived. It follows that either it is not real in the extramental sense, or there is a knowledge that is over and above sensation.

We would argue that there is a knowledge that is over and above sensation, namely intellection. Cause and effect is known, not perceived. All knowledge begins with the senses, but it does not end there; knowledge ends in intellection. This is so because knowledge begins and ends with real being.

To cause an effect is to impart being. And it is existential judgment that apprehends being. Now, from nothing comes nothing. For it is not possible to get being from non-being (nothing). And nothing is not a "potency", for "nothing" does not have "ability", and "ability" is a potentiality (an indeterminacy). Potentiality or ability is not nothing. It is intelligible--not in itself, but intelligible nonetheless. So it is not true that from nothing comes something. Nothing is nothing pure and simple. The universe, or anything for that matter, cannot have been the effect of nothing or non-being, for nothing simply "is not", and to effect is to impart being. But nothing has no being to impart, nor is it anything from which "is" may emerge.

Now, if there is nothing, then there is no fluctuation, quantum or otherwise. As Parmenides knew long ago, non-being or nothing is unthinkable. It cannot be made an object of thought. So if we refer to quantum fluctuation, we refer to something, not nothing. Furthermore, if quantum fluctuation is going to have any intelligible value whatsoever, there will have to be a subject of that fluctuation. What is it that is fluctuating?

Moreover, act proceeds from potency. But nothing reduces itself from potentiality to actuality except by something already in act. The act of all acts is the act of existing. But nothing can bring itself into being from non-being. In order to "bring itself into" anything, it would have to first exist or be. Activity (second act) presupposes a first act, that is, an existing being capable of acting. And not only is it not possible for potentiality to reduce itself to actuality absolutely, but also relatively. An already existing thing that is in potentiality to a certain mode of being cannot reduce itself to that actual mode of being. A thing cannot give to itself what it does not have, that is, what it is in potency to receive. If it could, it would have it actually and not potentially. But a cause imparts being or a mode of being to that which is in potentiality to receive that particular mode of being. For instance, what is potentially moving is made to be actually moving by something already in the act of moving. To deny this is as absurd as denying that nothing can bring itself into being. To reiterate, what is in potentiality towards a particular mode of being cannot impart to itself what it does not have, namely that particular mode of being, such as motion, a particular quantity, an accidental quality, etc. If it could impart a mode of being to itself that it does not have, then it is not true that it does not have it. And if it is not true that it does not have it, then it is not true that it is in potentiality towards it.

Physical objects may very well be spontaneously appearing all the time, but not knowing the cause is hardly the same thing as not having a cause. This is Cartesianism at its worst. For this would amount to an absolute identification of logical being with real being. But the fact is that physicists seek to know the cause of spontaneously appearing objects because they, as human beings who have pre-scientific knowledge, know that nothing cannot impart being; for nothing has no potentiality whatsoever, because potentiality is a mode of being. Facts are not good enough for scientists. They want reasoned facts. What is the reason for this fact? Not knowing the cause of something is no basis at all for concluding that there isn't one.

Moreover, scientific knowledge is precisely demonstrative knowledge. A conclusion is demonstrated, for instance, that there is no ether, or that we cannot know the position and velocity of an electron at the same time, or that space is curved, etc. But a demonstrated conclusion is an effect of a cause, namely the middle term of a syllogism. That is why a weakening of cause and effect can only weaken science, which depends upon an ability to draw conclusions. For instance, take William Harvey's (d. 1657) demonstration of the circulation of the blood:

A fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction is moved circularly

The blood is such a fluid

Therefore, the blood is moved circularly.

The middle term in the above syllogism is A fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction. So, we ask: What is the reason for concluding that the blood is moved circularly? The reason or cause (or the cause being/because) is the middle term. In other words, the answer is because any fluid of limited quantity kept in perpetual motion in one direction is moved circularly.

So, any weakening of cause and effect can only end in a weakening of the scientific process. Science is precisely a "knowing", and to know is to know reasoned facts or causes. To reason to a conclusion requires a knowledge of causes. For science is a search for causes, and conclusions of arguments proceed from causes (middle terms).

Davies argues that the quantum physicist need not appeal to a supernatural act to bring the universe into being. But it is this word "supernatural" that is a problem here. In a sense this is true, one need not appeal to a supernatural act. But it does not follow that one need not appeal to God, who is Ipsum Esse. For God is intimately involved in every natural process, because to cause an effect is to impart being, and God is the First Cause of all that is, because God's essence is to be. Beings do indeed cause effects, but not without the primal causality of that Being whose nature is to be. For nothing reduces itself from potentiality to actuality except by something already in act. We, as actually existing beings, can impart being upon that which is in potentiality to receive the particular mode of being in question, but none of us can bring something into being from nothing. A habens esse cannot surpass the very limits of its nature, and a thing acts according to its nature. But being (esse) is accidental, so to speak, that is, existence is outside of essence (with respect to those beings whose essence is not to be, but to be some kind of thing). There is a real distinction between essence and existence. So as a moving being I can impart motion upon another thing that is potentially moving, but in order to do that I must first be (for me to be actually moving requires that I first be), and so too the potentially moving thing that is in a state of potentiality. Throughout the motion by which I impart moving existence upon a thing, it is Ipsum Esse who must continue to preserve me and the moving thing being moved by me into existence, otherwise I cannot impart motion to the potentially moving thing. And so as a cause of an effect, I am never more than a secondary cause.

Moreover, change involves two terminals: the terminal from which (terminus a quo) a change commences, and a terminal towards which (terminus ad quem) the change moves and at which it terminates.

But nothing cannot be a terminus, because it is nothing. That is why creation (the bringing of something into being, by God, from nothing) is not change. The notion of creation from nothing, without God (Ipsum Esse) of course, leaves us with nothing. So, we have the spontaneous appearance of the universe from nothing, according to Davies. It cannot be a change, since nothing is not a terminus. And there is no cause to this spontaneous appearance. So there is a potentiality that is actualized, but it is not "somehow" actualized because there is no cause. We cannot ask "how" or "why". To ask "why" is to seek the cause, and there is no cause. But quantum fluctuation is put forth as an agent cause. This is inconsistent. So what then, is the existential status of this quantum fluctuation? What is it? If it is nothing, it cannot be the cause. If it is something, then the universe did not proceed from nothing. Fluctuation is also a term whose meaning, like the meanings of all our words, is derived from our pre-scientific experience. Something fluctuates. The word itself means "change". Fluctuation implies a substrate and a terminus a quo. Something is changing, and the terminus ad quem of that change is the end of the change. Now, is there a cause of this quantum fluctuation? If not, then we posit a change that is not caused, that is, a fulfillment or a realization (actualization) of a potentiality without a prior act. But this too would mean getting something from nothing. There is no cause of the fluctuation, and so we cannot seek to know why there was a fluctuation. Now, if nothing precedes the fluctuation (which is to say that the fluctuation has no substrate), then the fluctuation has nothing for its terminus a quo (for it has no substrate). But nothing cannot be the terminus a quo, because nothing means non-being. It is absurd to posit nothing as being a term "from which".

Finally, one can apply this type of irrationality to anything, that is, to any situation. What is to prevent a person, suspected of robbing a bank, from simply claiming that the money found in his apartment just spontaneously appeared? What grounds does anyone have for maintaining that such a notion is irrational on one level but not on another? In short, the notion of something coming from nothing is irrational and arbitrary.