We have had a great many threads on this topic. In general, I think your line of reasoning works. However, proponents of uncaused existence generally argue that they do not need to claim that something ever "came from nothing." Rather, they must simply posit that something began to exist, or if positing eternal entities, that "something exists (without beginning or end)." Beginning to exist, uncaused, does not imply "coming" from nothing. It implies that something began to exist, and that prior to its existence it did not exist.

There are some interesting issues re uncaused existence, but they are not the same as claims about "something from nothing."

Hmm, interesting hypothesis.

However, I do believe something can come from nothing in quantum physics (believe it is called the Schwinger effect, but I'm no physicist). That would mean there is a possibility of creation out of nothing. I can't logically explain why, but in rare cases something just is, without a cause (or maybe without a cause yet or without a cause knowable by us).

Schwinger effect — Double H

It would not be creation out of nothing, as it presupposes an electric field, which presupposes spacetime.

Agreed, nothing cannot create anything. Nothing is nothing. It is not a 'thing'. There is a question of whether something can be uncaused, a topic I cover here if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

Good point, Lionino. If we take the notion of 'nothingness' as literal as possible (being void of time - space - matter - conciousness), then I agree with MoK

I think this topic has nothing to do with logic but with causality. To think that every event has to have a cause is just a human intuition, in my opinion, or, according to Kant, a category "a priori". Space and time are another "a priori" category. Our senses cannot detect space and time, nor causality. Our senses can just detect things. Space and time, and causality are not things. They are the prerequisite in our own transcendental mind that makes the detection of things possible for us. Just because this is the case here and now, doesn't mean that causality is everywhere all the time. Aside from that, there are acausal events in quantum physics. Also, assuming the big bang theory is correct, the bang occured without a cause as there wasn't even a time period before it.

Either there was never a time when there was nothing, or there was nothing and something came into existence uncaused. Neither seems possible, but at least one is the case.

Do we know or can we demonstrate that there was ever a case of nothing?

Not that I'm aware of.

We have had a great many threads on this topic. In general, I think your line of reasoning works. However, proponents of uncaused existence generally argue that they do not need to claim that something ever "came from nothing." Rather, they must simply posit that something began to exist, or if positing eternal entities, that "something exists (without beginning or end)." — Count Timothy von Icarus

We are dealing with an infinite regress if something exists eternally. Infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore something cannot exist eternally.

Beginning to exist, uncaused, does not imply "coming" from nothing. It implies that something began to exist, and that prior to its existence it did not exist. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well, this statement is valid if spacetime exists.

Hmm, interesting hypothesis.

However, I do believe something can come from nothing in quantum physics (believe it is called the Schwinger effect, but I'm no physicist). That would mean there is a possibility of creation out of nothing. I can't logically explain why, but in rare cases something just is, without a cause (or maybe without a cause yet or without a cause knowable by us). — Double H

I think you are talking about virtual particles that pop into existence from the quantum vacuum. The quantum vacuum refers to space that is devoid of matter whereas nothing is a condition that there is no thing, no spacetime, no material,...

Agreed, nothing cannot create anything. Nothing is nothing. It is not a 'thing'. There is a question of whether something can be uncaused, a topic I cover here if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1 — Philosophim

Oh, thanks for the reference to your thread. I will read it shortly.

I think this topic has nothing to do with logic but with causality. To think that every event has to have a cause is just a human intuition, in my opinion, or, according to Kant, a category "a priori". Space and time are another "a priori" category. Our senses cannot detect space and time, nor causality. Our senses can just detect things. Space and time, and causality are not things. — Quk

Causality is not a thing. Whether spacetime is a thing or not is still subject to debate. You might like to read this article.

They are the prerequisite in our own transcendental mind that makes the detection of things possible for us. Just because this is the case here and now, doesn't mean that causality is everywhere all the time. Aside from that, there are acausal events in quantum physics. — Quk

I think you are talking about virtual particles. Virtual particles however pop into existence from the quantum vacuum. Quantum vacuum is different from nothing.

Also, assuming the big bang theory is correct, the bang occured without a cause as there wasn't even a time period before it. — Quk

You need spacetime for the Big Bang to happen.

Either there was never a time when there was nothing, or there was nothing and something came into existence uncaused. — Patterner

Nothing to something is impossible. This is discussed here. There are two arguments for this one from Bob Ross and another from myself.

Bob Ross's argument:

P1: If an entity is the pure negation of all possible existence, then it cannot be subjected to temporality.
P2: ‘Nothing’ is the pure negation of all possible existence.
C1: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to temporality.

P3: Change requires temporality.
P4: ‘Nothing’ cannot be subjected to temporality.
C2: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to change.

P5: ‘Nothing’ becoming ‘something’ requires change.
P6: ‘Nothing’ cannot be subjected to change.
C3: Therefore, ‘nothing’ cannot be subjected to becoming (something).

My argument:

P1) Time is needed for change
P2) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing
P3) There is no time in nothing
C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P1 and P3)
C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P2 and C1)

Time is treated differently in these arguments, in my argument time is a substance whereas in Bob Ross's argument is not.

Neither seems possible, but at least one is the case. — Patterner

There is another case in which spacetime exists and then either things pop into existence or thing is caused by an agent, the so-called God.

You need spacetime for the Big Bang to happen. — MoK

You need the beginning of spacetime for the Big Bang to happen, I think.

You think there was spacetime before the Big Bang?

What's the alternative? An infinite past? That has its own problems. If the past is infinite then as of now an infinite period of time has completed, which seems nonsensical.

So I think that the past must be finite. I'm unsure if that entails that something came from nothing or if something "already" existed when time started – but then how did time start?

Quantum vacuum is different from nothing. — MoK

I mean "nothing" in the sense of "no specific thing (no thing) was there to cause the event".

The fact that the event happend in vacuum doesn't necessarily mean that this vacuum itself contributed to the cause. The existence of the vacuum side by side with the non-causal event may be pure coincidence.

You think there was spacetime before the Big Bang? — Quk

The Big Bang is the rapid expansion from an initial singularity; that singularity being something like an infinitely compressed spacetime.

Although if time is a dimension of this expanding spacetime then it might not make much sense to talk about before the Big Bang, as time (like length, width, and height) began with the Big Bang.

Whether spacetime is a thing or not is still subject to debate. You might like to read this article. — MoK

Thanks for the link. This reminds me of the question whether there are numbers when the entire world is absent. Was the number 42 there before the Big Bang happened? I'd say yes. Did the number 42 cause anything? I'd say no. Is mathematics a substance? I'd say no.

The Big Bang is the rapid expansion of an initial singularity; that singularity being something like an infinitely compressed spacetime. — Michael

Agreed. But before that singularity there was no time axis on which a previous event caused the big bang event, was it?

You need the beginning of spacetime for the Big Bang to happen, I think.

You think there was spacetime before the Big Bang? — Quk

The beginning of spacetime lay either before or at the Big Bang. The material either popped into existence after or at the beginning of time or it was caused or simply existed.

But before that singularity there was no time axis on which a previous event caused the big bang event, was it? — Quk

If time is a dimension of spacetime then it makes no sense to talk about "before" the singularity.

It is simply the case that an initial singularity of infinite temperature and density rapidly expanded.

It expanded presumably because given its inherent nature it is unstable and the probability that it will expand is non-zero (and without time there is no distinction between an instant and eternity).

And although it may be tempting to say that time is required for change, it is perhaps more accurate to say that time is change, assuming that time is in fact a dimension of spacetime.

What's the alternative? An infinite past? That has its own problems. If the past is infinite then as of now an infinite period of time has completed, which seems nonsensical. — Michael

Correct. The infinite past makes no sense.

So I think that the past must be finite. — Michael

Correct.

I'm unsure if that entails that something came from nothing or if something "already" existed when time started – but then how did time start? — Michael

Spacetime simply has existed since its beginning. Spacetime could not begin to exist. That is true since otherwise we are dealing with nothing to spacetime. Nothing to spacetime is a change. Spacetime is needed for any change. Therefore, spacetime is needed for nothing to spacetime. This leads to an infinite regress.

I agree completely.

(I just use the word "before" in order to be able to write that there is no "before". It's the same lingual logic as in the word "nothing": It's just used in order to tell what is absent, namely something; some thing versus no thing. We must be able to talk about absent issues. Therefore we need to name them.)

When an apple lies on the grass, what has caused this setting? I can offer two answers:

1. The apple felt from the tree. Without the tree the apple wouldn't be there.

2. Before the apple was on the grass, it wasn't there: "Apple absent at XYZT" changed to "Apple present at XYZT". In other words: Nothing changed to something.

Isn't this an empirical proof that the creation of something out of nothing is possible?

We are dealing with an infinite regress if something exists eternally. Infinite regress is not acceptable. Therefore something cannot exist eternally.

No, we are dealing with an infinite regress in cases where we have to posit an infinite number of past causes for something. E.g., X began because of Y and Y began because of Z and Z began because of... etc. The statement that "X exists without begining or end," does not require an infinite regress because X never begins to exist. There is nothing to regress to.

This is precisely why Aristotle decides that the world must be eternal, and why so many cosmologists, even those embracing versions of the "Big Bang," theory nonetheless claim that elements of the universe must be eternal.

You might attack to coherence of something existing "without begining or end," but it doesn't require a regress of explanations.

For example, you might consider the following proposition: Given we accept Euclid's axioms, it follows that all triangles will have angles that sum to two right angles (180 degrees).

Did this fact have a begining in time? Did it start to exist when Euclid developed his postulates? Or did it not exist until he had completed a proof for this proposition for each type of triangle? If the latter, and Euclid completed the proof of right triangles first, is it a true statement that at that time "given Euclid's axioms, it is the case that right triangles, but not other triangles have angles that sum to two right angles."?

Or, prior to Euclid, when earlier mathematicians empirically observed this fact about triangles, did the fact begin to exist then, even though Euclid's axioms has never been written down?

The problem here is that it seems like it will always be true that, given Euclid's axioms, this fact holds. It never begins to be true and under no conditions does it seem to become false.

Maybe we might think Euclid's axioms are rubbish, but it won't change the status of facts of the sort of "If A and I → B," where A is a set of axioms and I are inference rules, and B is a conclusion that follows from A and I.

Things like "if A = B and B = C, then A = C," do not seem to require any sort of infinite causal regress. Being logical truths, they do not require an infinite series of deductions either. Circularity is not infinite regress, we are not always going back to new reasons, but looping.

No, we are dealing with an infinite regress in cases where we have to posit an infinite number of past causes for something. E.g., X began because of Y and Y began because of Z and Z began because of... etc. The statement that "X exists without begining or end," does not require an infinite regress because X never begins to exist. There is nothing to regress to. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I should have said that we are dealing with an infinite regress in time if something exists eternally ("in time" was missing). By infinite regress in time I mean for any chosen time, t, there exists another time, t', where t' is before t.

This is precisely why Aristotle decides that the world must be eternal, and why so many cosmologists, even those embracing versions of the "Big Bang," theory nonetheless claim that elements of the universe must be eternal. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To the best of my knowledge, there are two arguments against the eternal universe: (1) Infinite regress in time and (2) Heat death which is the unavoidable ultimate fate of the universe if the universe is old enough.

You might attack to coherence of something existing "without begining or end," but it doesn't require a regress of explanations.

For example, you might consider the following proposition: Given we accept Euclid's axioms, it follows that all triangles will have angles that sum to two right angles (180 degrees).

Did this fact have a begining in time? Did it start to exist when Euclid developed his postulates? Or did it not exist until he had completed a proof for this proposition for each type of triangle? If the latter, and Euclid completed the proof of right triangles first, is it a true statement that at that time "given Euclid's axioms, it is the case that right triangles, but not other triangles have angles that sum to two right angles."?

Or, prior to Euclid, when earlier mathematicians empirically observed this fact about triangles, did the fact begin to exist then, even though Euclid's axioms has never been written down?

The problem here is that it seems like it will always be true that, given Euclid's axioms, this fact holds. It never begins to be true and under no conditions does it seem to become false.

Maybe we might think Euclid's axioms are rubbish, but it won't change the status of facts of the sort of "If A and I → B," where A is a set of axioms and I are inference rules, and B is a conclusion that follows from A and I.

Things like "if A = B and B = C, then A = C," do not seem to require any sort of infinite causal regress. Being logical truths, they do not require an infinite series of deductions either. Circularity is not infinite regress, we are not always going back to new reasons, but looping. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To me, the truth is objective, by objective I mean it does not depend on the mind so mathematical theorems are valid even if there is no man who could deduce or know them.

.

:up: :100:

To me, the truth is objective, by objective I mean it does not depend on the mind so mathematical theorems are valid even if there is no man who could deduce or know them. — MoK

which is the same as saying they would be valid for no one.

The solution to this problem is to posit that something has always existed since nothing is impossible. That’s the only conclusion to be drawn from it. The obvious question is well where did this something come from and again we’re faced with the brute fact that it’s always been.