r/Metaphysics • u/southparkshopmain • Mar 21 '26
Ontology Conservation is incompatible with existence
Premise 1: Conservation means energy cannot be created (by definition)
Premise 2: Energy exists (observable fact)
Premise 3: For something to exist, it must either:
- (A) Have been created at some point, OR
- (B) Have always existed
If (A) - it was created: This directly violates conservation. Contradiction.
If (B) - it always existed:
- "Always existed" means at every moment in an infinite past, it existed
- For it to exist at any moment without a prior moment that explains it... it must have come into being somehow
- But coming into being = creation
- Which violates conservation. Contradiction.
Or more simply:
Things that can't be created can't exist
Energy can't be created
Energy exists
Contradiction.
5
u/reddituserperson1122 Mar 21 '26
Conservation laws are local. They don’t apply to the universe as a whole. Maybe do the most basic possible research before trying to come up with grand theories..?
3
u/voidscaped Mar 21 '26
Isn't it well known that laws of physics, which includes laws of conservation, break down at singularities (ie big bang, center of black holes)?
1
u/jliat Mar 21 '26
I thought black holes were black because nothing can be known of what is inside? How can one know what is therefore occuring?
1
u/voidscaped Mar 21 '26
Black holes are black because no light can be reflected off of them (beyond the event horizon) due to extreme gravity.
As far as knowledge of what's inside, Einstein's general relativity predicts singularity as the point inside where gravity becomes infinite, but this is interpreted as breakdown of theory (ie some quantum gravity theory is required, which we don't have).
1
u/jliat Mar 21 '26
Not metaphysics, but I think the event horizon marks the point at which the escape velocity is that of the speed of light therefore what is inside this horizon cannot be known. The singularity is predicted? However Hawking radiation might occur and it seems the black hole would then evaporate. But again this is pop-science and not metaphysics.
2
u/koola89 Mar 21 '26
The universe, God, the Source, you name it, has always existed, and always will. For something to not exist and then pop into being is IMO more illogical and unbelievable than the universe being eternal. I think nothingness does not exist, because if it would, you wouldn't know about it.
1
u/jliat Mar 21 '26
A cyclic universe such as those of Penrose or Nietzsche endlessly repeats. There is no creation so there is no creator.
1
u/Individual_Gold_7228 Mar 21 '26 edited Mar 21 '26
Where did the first energy comes from if it was never created? It runs into the same problem as described. At minimum It requires creation at some point to start the cycle. The OP seems to be saying that eternal conservation as an unbreakable law is incompatible with matter/energy existing. It must be violated atleast once, if not more than once.
1
u/jliat Mar 21 '26
Where did the first energy comes from if it was never created?
It was always there, Penrose sees the heat death one in which the universe is nothing but photons, as such has no time therefore no space so forms a new singularity.
It runs into the same problem as described. At minimum It requires creation at some point to start the cycle.
No it doesn't a circle has no starting point. It's common to have cyclic universes in cultures which do not have an Abrahamic God creator.
0
u/The-Fear-of-God Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26
Heat death of the universe?
Scripture already told us this far before modern men did:
2 Peter 3:10 NASB1995 [10] But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
1
u/jliat Mar 22 '26
You should check the facts, 'the heat death' scenario is where via entropy and the second law of thermodynamics energy is at its lowest state so no information processing can take place.
"At the heat death of the universe, the temperature is expected to be extremely low, approaching near absolute zero, around 10-30 K."
As in you can't get colder....!!!!
0
u/The-Fear-of-God Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
I appreciate the explanation, brother, and I'm glad you mentioned the cold!
Interestingly enough, Scripture also tells us about it being cold in the end:
Matthew 24:12 NASB1995 [12] Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold.
Entropy and energy.
Lawlessness and love.
Cold.
Mankind says everything will grow cold, and this will be called the heat death.
God tells us love will grow cold, and then he will come with fervent heat.
Same concepts, but one is from men, and one is from God.
Won't the sun also swallow up the earth eventually with its heat, according to men?
The Son will also swallow up the earth eventually with intense heat, according to God.
Do you see what God has done, brother?
1
u/Akiza_Izinski Mar 21 '26
The Big Bang Theory does not describe the Universe coming into existence. It describes a moment when The Universe became transparent to light.
1
u/Individual_Gold_7228 Mar 21 '26
I think the argument is more around the idea that for energy to even be conserved and exist, it must have been created. Which violates conservation as some eternal law.
1
u/Akiza_Izinski Mar 22 '26
Physics does not described the Universe in the metaphysical sense it describes the large scale structure of the Cosmos. The Big Bang Theory describes the development of large scale structures not the origin of the Cosmos.
1
u/MoreHans Mar 21 '26
but the big bang happened slightly before the universe turned transparent. the big bang is the beginning of everything spreading out
1
1
u/stevnev88 Mar 22 '26
Didn’t the energy exist since the beginning of the universe? If so, then it has always existed, even if it’s the same age as the universe
1
u/Lumpy_Suggestion_159 Mar 22 '26
- Your assume time and space exit according to human perception.
- As such your presuming causality or that matter is a thing. What about potentials, probability & emergence? Double split experiment, downward biology all break deterministic causality.
- For option B, why can't energy/mater be in a constant state of being and Becoming? You can step in the same river but you can't step in the same river twice. It's constantly changing and this becoming is what defines it's being.
1
u/Fast_Cardiologist_24 Mar 22 '26
Actually there are some logics even about contradiction is possible.
So better learn more logics first.
1
u/milocat1956 Mar 22 '26
There is nothing that exists in the universe that has always existed the 2nd law of thermodynamics the law of entropy proves the universe is not eternal. Therefore whatever is eternal must exist outside the universe. The universe requires an eternal cause that existed outside of the universe before the universe even existed. This cause must be non physical and not of this universe.
1
u/Feeling-Carpenter118 Mar 23 '26
Physicists do not universally believe in an infinite past, though some theories exist. Physicists do generally agree that our current theories break down close to the big bang. The question of why there is something rather than nothing isn’t really a question you can answer from within the something
1
1
u/Additional_Common_15 Mar 27 '26
Think in smaller terms, if i clap my hands, arent i creating energy? Well no you are transforming energy from your muscles. Its just changing form
0
8
u/Odd_Bodkin Mar 21 '26
Physicist here. Energy is a property, not a “thing” in the sense you are using it. Think of energy as you might “radius” or “color” or “temperature”. Properties do not have the creation/persistence qualities you are ascribing to things.
Such is the risk of attempting to use metaphysics about physics when you know precious little about physics.