Yet you still fall into the trap of believing that if you can not see it , it can not be . — Colin Cooper
Thus begins somewhat of an inquiry as to what exactly is meant by nothingness, and the nature thereof. — CorneliusCoburn
Virtual particles render something coming from nothing a physical commonplace.
Particles pop into existence from nothing all around you, all the time.
So what happened? The ancients (the idea goes back much further than a couple of decades) saw that one thing caused another, and decided that everything must have a cause. But that conclusion was an induction from their observations, and hence strictly invalid. Indeed, it's been show to be wrong by observations of atomic decay.
But the notion that everything has a cause was used to defend religious dogma, and hence has a strong adherence amongst the faithful; and adherence that will not be shaken by mere truth.
Watch what happens here next... those who defend the notion that nothing can come from nothing will overwhelmingly do so in order to protect their religious views.
Given that all extant cosmological evidence indicates that it had a planck radius at "the beginning", the universe is a very-far-from-equilibrium "macroscale" effect of a primordial "microscale uncaused event" (i.e. quantum fluctuation), and therefore not a(n act of) "creation".I could possibly accept there are microscale uncaused events, but uncaused macroscale events (e.g., earthquakes)? Those have causes, and the chain of causation leads all the way back to the beginning of the universe, so it would seem that the creation of a universe is probably not an uncaused cause. — RogueAI
It all depends how you conceive of "nothing". If you break the word down to "no" and "thing" then it is possible that it describes chaos where no thing has formed, nothing to point at so to speak. However chaos is a source of potential for somethingness, it just requires will to organise it. — Chester
But the notion that everything has a cause was used to defend religious dogma, and hence has a strong adherence amongst the faithful; and adherence that will not be shaken by mere truth. — Banno
Given that all extant cosmological evidence indicates that it had a planck radius at "the beginning", the universe is a very-far-from-equilibrium "macroscale" effect of a primordial "microscale uncaused event" (i.e. quantum fluctuation) it seems to me, and, therefore, not a(n act of) "creation".
In the context of the universe as it is. The something here would not just be the particles, but whatever the rules or possibilites (or necessities ) of the nothing that allows for this, or perhaps, better put, includes this things coming out of nothing. To me that's something. And also somewhere.Virtual particles render something coming from nothing a physical commonplace.
Particles pop into existence from nothing all around you, all the time. — Banno
Virtual particles do not appear from nothing. They are a result of energy converted into mass. So, we can't find 'nothing' there either. — emancipate
Virtual particles do not appear from nothing — emancipate
but it seems pretty clear that at rock bottom, there must be something that exists as a metaphysical necessity. — Michael Nelson
Something cannot come from nothing. Something in the classical world of material objects (as were perceived them) can come from a quantum system that lacks such objects.Ultimately though, what transpired was openness to plausibility of a something from nothing scenario over that of an eternal thing, or a little of both, maybe.
Thus begins somewhat of an inquiry as to what exactly is meant by nothingness, and the nature thereof. — CorneliusCoburn
An a posteriori necessity, right?Third, therefore the mostly likely scenario is that there has always been something. Debating what that something is (God, some supernatural entity that isn't God, some fundamental particle etc.) is the subject for a different thread, but it seems pretty clear that at rock bottom, there must be something that exists as a metaphysical necessity. — Michael Nelson
If, as you say, "the physical world is contingent" - and I agree it is - then, it seems to follow, "the physical world" coming-to-be was uncaused, it continuing-to-be is uncaused, and it ceasing-to-be will be uncaused as well; and so, therefore, "at metaphysical rock bottom" there's randomness (i.e. omni-symmetrical, fluctuating, void), no? Furthermore, this randomness isn't a mere "something" - one thing among other things - but rather is 'everything' insofar as every "something", being contingent, presupposes it. If not, what am I missing?The physical world is contingent, yes, but there must be something at metaphysical rock bottom for anything to exist at all. — Michael Nelson
Probably nothing. But it strikes me that at the metaphysical bottom all you got is language, with all problems thereunto appurtenant.If not, what am I missing? — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.