Jump to content

Creatio ex materia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pogenplain (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 14 May 2024 (removing over-reliance on primary sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Creation ex materia is the notion that the universe was formed out of eternal, pre-existing matter. This is in contrast to the notion of creatio ex nihilo, where the universe is created out of nothing. The idea of creation ex materia is already found in ancient near eastern cosmology, including in early Greek cosmology, such as is in the works of Homer and Hesiod.[1] It was also held by a few early Christians, although creatio ex nihilo was the dominant concept among such writers. At some point, creation ex materia came to be accepted in Mormonism.[2]

Greek philosophers came to widely frame the notion of creation ex materia with the philosophical dictum "nothing comes from nothing" (Template:Lang-gr; Template:Lang-la). Although it is not clear if the dictum goes back to Parmenides (5th century BC) or the Milesian philosophers,[3] a more common version of the expression was coined by Lucretius, who stated in his De rerum natura that "nothing can be created out of nothing".[4]

One version of the notion of creation ex materia is creation ex deo, meaning "creation from God". According to this idea, God creates the universe from his own divine substance, as in panentheism (if partial) and pandeism (if complete).[5]

Greek philosophy

Parmenides' articulation of the dictum that "nothing comes from nothing" is first attested in Aristotle's Physics:

τί δ᾽ ἄν μιν καὶ χρέος ὦρσεν ὕστερον ἢ πρόσθεν, τοῦ μηδενὸς ἀρξάμενον, φῦν; οὕτως ἢ πάμπαν πελέναι χρεών ἐστιν ἢ οὐχί.
[6]

In English translation:[7]

 Yet why would it be created later rather than sooner, if it came from nothing; so, it must either be created altogether or not [created at all].

Though commonly credited to Parmenides, some historians believe that the dictum instead historically traces back to the Milesian philosophers.[3] In any case, Parmenides believed that non-existence could neither give rise to existence (genesis), nor could something that exists cease to exist (perishing). That which does not exist has no causal powers, and therefore could not give rise to something.[4]

A typical expression of it can be found in the writings of Plutarch, which conditions that the structured and formed things that exist now derive from earlier, unformed and unshaped matter. Therefore, the creation act was the process of ordering this unordered matter.[8]

The Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius expressed this principle in his first book of De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) (1.148–173). According to his argument, if something could come from nothing, it would be commonplace to observe something coming from nothing all the time, even to witness any animal emerge fully-made or to see trees at one point bearing an apple but later producing a pear. This is because there is no prerequisite, as there would be no limitation specifying that things that emerge in the future must emerge from specific kinds of things in the past.

Early modern literature

In Shakespeare's play King Lear Act 1 Scene 1, the title character says to his daughter Cordelia, "Nothing will come of nothing".[9]

Modern physics

Some physicists—such as Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, and Michio Kaku—have defined "nothing" as an unstable quantum vacuum that contains no particles.[10][11][12] Philosopher David Albert has criticised Krauss for this, pointing out that his definition of "nothing" presupposes the existence of quantum fields obeying particular laws of physics. According to Albert, Krauss has "nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story".[13] Krauss responded that he doesn't "give a damn about what 'nothing' means to philosophers; [he] care[s] about the 'nothing' of reality," and called Albert "a moronic philosopher".[14]

Alexander Vilenkin defines "nothing" as "a state with no classical space time".[15]

See also

References

Citations

  1. ^ De Almeida 2021.
  2. ^ Harrell 2011, p. 233–234.
  3. ^ a b Roecklein 2011, p. 37–56.
  4. ^ a b Mumford 2021, p. 8.
  5. ^ Thomas Jay Oord, Creatio Ex Nihilo and Its New Rivals (Routledge, 2014), page 3.
  6. ^ "Parmenides, Fragments 1-19". Lexundria.com. Retrieved 2020-02-04.
  7. ^ "Parmenides, Fragments 1-19". Lexundria.com. Retrieved 2020-02-04.
  8. ^ Young 1991, p. 139–140.
  9. ^ Shakespeare, William (1603–1606). The Tragedy of King Lear – via Wikisource.
  10. ^ Krauss, Lawrence (2012). A Universe from Nothing. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8.
  11. ^ Hawking, Stephen; Mlodinow, Leonard (2010). The Grand Design. Bantam Books. ISBN 978-0-553-80537-6.
  12. ^ "A Universe is a Free Lunch". Big Think. 5 February 2013. Retrieved 12 May 2015.
  13. ^ Albert, David (2012-03-23). "On the Origin of Everything". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-04-29.
  14. ^ Andersen, Ross (2012-04-23). "Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2022-04-29.
  15. ^ Vilenkin, Alexander (1985). "Quantum Origin of the Universe". Nuclear Physics B. 252: 141. Bibcode:1985NuPhB.252..141V. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85)90430-4.

Sources

Further reading

  • Lucretius. (2007). The Nature of Things. Trans. A. E. Stallings. New York: Penguin Classics.