I simply ask, what IS it that is beyond oneself? Turns out to be a fascinating question in phenomenology. — Constance

Beyond is whatever evolution gets to in the future; quantum fields are the root before in the past.

There is no space in which particles move. Like frames of a film, a series of interactions can give the impression of continuous movement in space. — Treatid

OK if the mode of time is not Presentism but Eternalism; however, we don't yet know the mode of time. If Presentism, the 'particles' roll along their fields, like a kink in a rope moves.

Guess #1: A vacuum fluctuation. — 180 Proof

Yes, and a 'particle' could pop out, along with virtuals coming and going that didn't make it to a stable quantum energy rung.

A wild guess for why fluctuations happens is that is if 'they try' to be zero/nothing they cannot do it. The so-called zero-point energy is not zero, although it is not a useable energy.

The simplest fundamental would have no parts, which is fine, for elementary 'particles' would be rather stable arrangements of it, such as in QFT (Quantum Field Theory).
— PoeticUniverse

'Nothing' is certainly simple... but it isn't really a building block.

A field is hardly simple. You have an n-dimensional continuous field which can be infinitely sub-divided.

It took Russell hundreds of pages of dense mathematics just to get to 1+1=2. I'd have to look to see if there is any construction for real numbers.

It is true that Euclidean Geometry (and many non-Euclidean counterparts) take a field of some kind as a given.

In this sense, fields are certainly foundational/fundamental to large parts of mathematics and physics.

However, it isn't clear to me that Fundamental == Simple.

I'm not saying you are wrong - I'm saying you will have to do much more than mentioning the idea of fields to persuade me that fields constitute simple, let alone simplest. — Treatid

Having no parts is not 'Nothing'. The Fundamental can't have parts because those parts world be more fundamental; thus, the fundamental consists of only itself; it does not get made and it cannot break, so there is no sub-dividing it. For example, a wave would be continuous and have no parts. Waves are also ubiquitous in physical nature. The Fundamental has to be the simplest, by the necessity shown above. We can also see this trend as we look more and more 'downward'

An electron is directly a quantum of the quantum electron field, which field appears to be fundamental.
— PoeticUniverse

There is some ambiguity in your statement. Are you saying an electron is fundamental, or the quantum electron field?

In either case... Okay. And?

I don't know how to engage with your comment. I don't know if you are just expanding on the idea of fundamental properties in Quantum Mechanics or you are correcting a misapprehension you think I have.

Perhaps you are just adding your own snippet to the conversation.

My expectation from philosophy forums is a discussion of ideas. A dialogue.

Your expectation doesn't have to match mine. It just means I'm likely to bug you to expand on your point until I can see something I can engage with. — Treatid

An electron is temporary, as is all else but the permanent quantum fields. An electron can be annihilated by a positron, but electrons can persist awhile in the right emvironment.

If we were to create a universe, what are the simplest possible building blocks that we could use? — Treatid

The simplest fundamental would have no parts, which is fine, for elementary 'particles' would be rather stable arrangements of it, such as in QFT (Quantum Field Theory).

In Quantum Mechanics (QM), an electron is a fundamental particle. (the name 'particle' is a bit of a misnomer, particles in QM are wave functions). — Treatid

An electron is directly a quantum of the quantum electron field, which field appears to be fundamental.

"The One" is unbounded nature (or existence) and materialism is one way of talking about, or describing, nature that explicitly excludes "immaterial" entities. — 180 Proof

The Permanent One of Existence would be such as the quantum 'vacuum' fields, they forming all else, the temporaries, beginning with field quanta, via arrangements of itself.

there is an inherent element of unpredictability at the most basic strata of nature. — Wayfarer

At the lowest strata of the bedrock of All, where the bucks stops, we can deduce total randomness, given that there can't be any certain direction supplied to it at its most basic level. The same if it always was (eternal). The same if it somehow had a beginning for no reason.

In a way science became its own atheistic religion. People believe in science just like people believed in gods. — Elnathan

No, the religious wish and hope that there is a God, unshown, which is called 'faith'; then, sadly, misleadingly preach and teach as if 'God is true'; not honest.

People trust in science that works and is shown as proven; honest.

The fixed, determined, unfree will grants us consistency (without it, then what?).

In reference to fatalism people still have desires to do and experience things and your choices still matter in a practical sense. — Captain Homicide

Yes, it seems that experiencing is the main benefit of being alive.

Our learning and decision-making processes are shaped by external influences and do not stem from a truly autonomous free will. — Echogem222

Yes, the will is fixed to what the will has amounted to up to the moment. There cannot be a "truly autonomous free will" such as in not using the will, meaning that one is somehow a first cause, so that kind of 'free' is impossible.

The 'free' in free will needs to be defined. I gave one case of free versus fixed, but of course one cannot be free of the will, so that 'free' doesn't mean anything but to help emphasize the robot shock of the will being fixed to influences, etc..

Others might define 'free' as when not being coerced.

The court system's 'free' is as one being held responsible versus being not sane or being extremely emotional as temporarily not sane, and thus not responsible.

The religious might mean 'free' as that matching God's will.

Using 'free' to merely mean that the will is able to operate is trivial, with the 'free' not meaning anything.

Other words that want to take on a life of their own apart from their definition are 'infinite', as an amount or a number (the infinite never completes; one cannot have it) or 'Nothing' (an 'it' trying to be an it).

'No free will' seems to sound like some sort of a bad thing, on the surface, as if there was an alternative, such to be had by adding 'free' to it to make it magic.

The just plain will (with no adjective needed) is dynamic in time and so it can change, yet its still robotic and deterministic, but granting us consistency.

Your intro post is long winded.

In the same sense, we could all have been created by something that we have no awareness of, which would be nothing to us, therefore, nothing creating everything is reasonable given that we currently lack the means to say otherwise using logical reasoning. — Echogem222

You are overloading the word 'nothing' to also mean 'having no understanding, having no awareness of', so it is that you are saying it is reasonable that we don't know how we became. A person blind in a primary color could use some wave frequency instrument to learn more about a color not registering.

As an aside, we do know how we and all the other temporaries were created, via instruments and math, yet it's true that we can't be aware of noumena directly nor if there is more that we can't get at in any way, say, something that can't exchange energy, which, of course thus has no effect whatsoever.

How can something that seems to be nothing have properties? — Echogem222

The hole is not 'nothing'; there is no paradox; it has quantum field. 'Nothing' cannot have properties, much less be. Your other "sure's" don't apply. In this thread's terminology, "nothing" is also standing in for not understanding, yet I understand All.

By that reasoning, you're saying you understand everything already, preventing what you once didn't understand being equal to nothing, becoming something you now do understand. With that, there would be no gaps in your reasoning, but to make such a claim requires a lot of evidence to back it up. — Echogem222

Yes, indeed, I understood Everything when science confirmed my First Philosophy, but this thread is about holes (which cannot be, because 'nothing' cannot have existence), unless you want to broaden it to the understanding of the Eternal/Permanent Basis of All and it's temporaries, and on up to life now and into the future.

Things don't pop up for no reason, in fact, that is an assertion that implies a cause(in this case, 'no reason'). Given this, it is wiser to assert that the universe came into existence by some manifestation in, per se, a multiverse, than it is to park randomly on the conjecture it just popped up for no reason. — Barkon

I would surmise that the universe's bang had a cause because, at least, it was able to happen - and that ableness is a something, not a 'nothing'.

As for the ultimate basis of All, it would have to be causeless because Existence has no opposite, it thus having to be unmakeable and unbreakable, it necessarily having no parts and thus being continuous, and eternal.

By that reasoning you are saying that a circle is a square at the same time because they're both shapes. In other words, since they're both similar to each other, they must be the same thing. — Echogem222

No, not said. 'Nothing' has no existence and 'it' cannot even be meant.

There cannot be spacers or holes of 'Nothing' in the Permanent or in its rearrangements into temporaries; all is continuous field.

This scenario seems to indicate a problem with the concept of an infinite-sided die, possibly even suggesting that such a die cannot exist. — keystone

"Infinite" is not a number as an amount of sides but is that which cannot be gotten to since it never completes, but to play along, the die is ever becoming more of a higher and higher resolution smoother sphere.

And on and on and hosanna — schopenhauer1

Unto the end… (I've been making musicals lately)

whether Nirvāṇa is something that can really be obtained is an open question. — Wayfarer

Nirvana is the realization of impermanence, no absolutes, and emptiness through and through.

We still wonder who is doing the "obtaining" or the realization.

What is the nature of an illusion ? — Sirius

why do you claim it is unethical to state 'God is true' — javi2541997

More so when they teach/preach it to others.

Is every category of philosophy a type of metaphysics? — ucarr

Philosophy proposes a truth based on the logic of reasoning for science to dispose of or confirm.

religious faith and groups usually tend to make me wonder about a lot of questions rather than give me answers.
This makes me struggle to understand religion... — javi2541997

There is not much to understand but that religious 'faith' is a wish or a hope that 'God' exists and the rest is the dishonor of acting, saying, and preaching as if 'God' exists, and then layering more 'truths' upon unto many myth-takes.

Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach,
As if notions were truth and fact to teach.
Oh, cleric, repent; at least say, ‘Have faith’;
Since, of unknowns ne’er shown none can e’er reach.

To be honest a cleric or a believer might ever only refer to the maybe/perhaps/hoped for 'God' instead of the misleading/unethical 'God is true' proclamation.

Since philosophy is abour truth, it looks like it has no links to science and explanations. — Agent Smith

Who needs a proof when one has found a truth?

Not that science can't confirm to satisfy our curiosity for a proof.

it can't explain Everything — Tate

That which is by necessity causeless and eternal has no alternative but to be; no option; no opposite.

I then conclude that ‘something’ has always existed and has done so eternally.

Case closed ? — Deus

Yes, for there is no "come from" for the Eternal.

One can go on to conclude that the temporaries produced by the Permanent Eternal have to be its rearrangements, such as the elementary 'particles' that are directly the quanta of fields.

We can't tell the universe what to do, the universe tells us what to do, and it gets us to do what it wants by making us think it is our "freewill". What we call "freewill" is really the will of the universe itself, and even the universe itself doesn't have freewill it's just "will". — punos

Good post.

Since outputs always have inputs, so true,
Then what, we wonder, should we try to do?
It’s the other way around, oh, brain stew,
For cause, time, and the universe do you!

I found the link:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/19364/1/Physics-Time%20and%20Qualia%20-%20Smolin-Verde-7-24-2021-FINAL.pdf

excerpts:

We must then make a distinction between events which generate a constant statistical distribution of outcomes, whose causal future is at least on a statistical level, a consequence of their causal past, and those which are not governed by any evolution law, deterministic or stochastic. We will call the first kind, precedented or habitual events; the latter unprecedented or “free” events.

How does the universe choose the outcomes of preparations which have no or few precedents? We propose that the novel states or events are the physical correlates of conscious events. At these moments, the universe has perhaps some degree of freedom to choose what happens next. It is these moments of freedom which make up conscious experience.

Those unprecedented moments are presumably common near the universe's origin, and spread throughout the universe. As the universe ages, it takes a higher degree of complexity for a state to be unprecedented. But we can wonder whether complex biomolecules might serve as a reservoir of novel states. Might the biosphere and the brain have evolved, to make use of the special properties of novel states, including the freedom present at those moments to choose a small part of the future. It is not difficult to see that this access to novel states might give an animal a selective advantage.

Consciousness is connected with - in fact, created by - the resolution of indefinite states. This ties qualia tightly to quantum theory – especially when that is looked at with the perspective of a world created by an active time. This implies a heightened sensitivity to novelties. The ability to detect novelty is not a peripheral or optional feature of the mind/brain-it is its main function. Qualia, we conjecture are signals of the recognition of novel situations. We and other creatures have evolved the ability to do so through evolution - as a creature that can resolve ambiguities quickly will, all things being equal, survive better.

Are there any strong arguments for free will? — TiredThinker

Lee Smolin thinks that what is novel/unique requires consciousness to resolve it (somehow free will?), whereas what has happened before goes on auto pilot, or something like that. I can't find his write-up.

The 5D quantum vacuum itself has no direction in time. — Hillary

Why 5D?

Which raises the question, what caused the acausality lying beneath all phenomena? — Hillary

This is getting near to doomed notion that something can come out of a true lack of anything or 'Nothing'. If something pops out out, then was there was still something behind it, which is the capability for it and so that would be the something that is eternal.

Every notion ever gets down to an eternal something that is unmakeable and unbreakable, such as quantum fields are close to being. All further temporary forms, then, are but arrangements of the eternal something, as they would have to be, again such as 'particles' are directly the quanta of fields, not some new substance.

I already said my view, which you had previously quoted, that the seeming temporal change from "nothing" to "something" is like an artifact imposed by our minds. That is, "that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now". — Roger

So, the mind makes a false artifact, thinking that a lack of anything can have being. This leaves The Existent to have no opposite and no alternative. Parmenides said that 'Nothing' cannot even be meant.

The weave of the quantum fields as strokes writes
The letters of the elemental bytes—
The alphabet of the standard model,
Atoms then forming the stars’ words whose mights

Merge to form molecules, as the phrases,
On to proteins/cells, as verse sentences,
In to organisms ‘stanza paragraphs,
And to the poem stories of the species.

Of this concordance of literature,
We’re the Cosmos’ poetic adventure,
Sentient poems being unified-verses,
As both the contained and the container.

We are both essence and form, as poems versed,
Ever unveiling this life’s deeper thirsts,
As new riches, through strokes, letters, phonemes,
Words, phrases, and sentences—uni versed.

We have rhythm, reason, rhyme, meter, sense,
Metric, melody, and beauty’s true pense,
Revealed through life’s participation,
From the latent whence into us hence.

Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Block’s decree,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Responsibility, Free Will, and Theity.

I'm not a big fan of Sean Carroll's because his final answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that it's a brute fact. — Roger

What would make it such that The Existent has no alternative? There can't be a sequence in time from 'Nothing' that has no time nor has anything.

That's great! If quantum fields are "the basis of all that is possible" and "the fundamental strokes", who am I to argue with great literature?! I withdraw my previous criticism of physicists' nothing! :smile:
If you wrote that, nice writing! — Roger

You are adaptable, a good sign.

Everything is now physically known about our everyday lives:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07884.pdf

When you hear physicists talk about something coming from nothing, the nothing they're talking about still contains the laws of quantum physics, quantum fields, abstract concepts like the laws of logic or mathematical constructs. — Roger

What’s continuous means a field that waves,
Naught else; ‘Stillness’ is impossible.
A field has a changing value everywhere,
Since the ‘vacuum’ e’er has to fluctuate.

The fields overlap and some interact;
So, there is one overall field as All,
As the basis of all that is possible—
Of energy’s base motion default.

From the field points ever fluctuating,
Quantum field waverings have to result
From points e’er dragging on one another.
Points are bits that may form letter strokes.

As sums of harmonic oscillators,
Fields can only form their elementaries
At stable quanta energy levels;
Other excitation levels are virtuals.

Since the quantum fields are everywhere,
The elementaries, like ‘kinks’, can move
To anyplace in the realms of the fields.
As in a rope, only the quanta move.

At each level of organization
Of temporaries in the universe,
New capabilities become available,
And so they take on a life of their own
In addition to what gives rise to them.

The great needle plays, stitches, winds, and paves
As the strands of quantum fields’ webs of waves
That weave the warp, weft, and woof, uni-versed,
Into being’s fabric of Earth’s living braids.

Quantum fields are the fundamental strokes
Whose excitations at harmonics cloaks
The field quanta with stability
To persist and obtain mobility.

As letters of the Cosmic alphabet,
The elementary particles beget,
Combining in words to write the story
Of the stars, atoms, cells, and life’s glory.

1. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. — Roger

Good one! I would stick with that.

If the particles are spread out in space then they obviously have a spatial structure. — litewave

Yes, which are the directly structure of the quantum field. That elementary particles go through two slits shows that they are field quanta, that is that they have a wave nature, which is also. in short, why there are stable rungs of quanta. We are getting close to the One, for a wave is continuous, having no parts. An electron given energy make quantum jumps in an atom, for its wave cannot just be cut at any old place but must become a multiple for it to remain intact.

I can see why some may still see quantum fields as a system, since there are 25 of them; however, the quantum vacuum that isn't a vacuum contains them all.