Above came as a revelation to me from heaven. — Beena

Get back in contact with them and tell them that

We have the giant infinite emptiness that is nothing — Beena

Is something, and not nothing. Perhaps you will help them with their obvious confusion. :halo:

Reality is a donut-hole, or nothing out of something. — Thus Spoke 180 Proof

So the cosmos begins from a zero, nothing. — Beena

I have no trouble with the idea of something coming out of nothing, but there is a problem. You'll find here on the forum, and I assume elsewhere, that people will tell you your nothing is not really nothing at all. It's really something, e.g. the quantum vacuum.

Welcome to the forum.

Welcome to TPF! :clap:

I only want to know why life is there. — Beena

Only that? That's quite modest! :grin:

This is a million --well, today it's a billion-- dollar question. It is among ones that have not been answered for thousand years now. And by answer, I mean one that is persuasive and invariable. Because anyone can give one's opinion about the reason why. And for me, that will be, "For no reason!" :smile:

Above came as a revelation to me from heaven. — Beena

This has the same methodological problem as your other thread.

Perhaps you might get back in touch with heaven and have them reveal it to everyone?

Heaven has a history of being too selective.

Reality is a donut-hole, or nothing out of something. — Thus Spoke 180 Proof

Or something out of nothing? This is a legitimate philosophical issue. :chin:

Reality is a donut-hole, or nothing out of something. — Thus Spoke 180 Proof

As you ramble on through life, Brother,
Whatever be your goal,
Keep your eye upon the doughnut,
And not upon the hole.
- Unknown

Or something out of nothing? This is a legitimate philosophical issue. — jgill

Is there a representation of nothing, that as a maths prof, you accept as meeting/satisfying its concept?
0 for example is a most definite 'something.' Use of the word 'nothing' is a definite something. There is no way to reference the concept satisfactorily imo. So, what are we left with? A simple placeholder, no more than that, just like other placeholders such as god, infinity, eternity, the omni's, etc.

Is there a representation of nothing, that as a maths prof, you accept as meeting/satisfying its concept? — universeness

I'm tempted to say, Nothing I can think of. But I won't. How about an element of the empty set? :cool:

What you say is true. And it's what the physics tell us.

But does this mean (I'm asking semi-rhetorically) that the nothing you and I have in mind is impossible?

Then what do we do when we say, speculate about "what was happening" (in quotes) prior to the Big Bang?

Seems to me that the nothing we have in mind and "real" nothing may not be so different after all. But it's not clear.

Wondering if your own orientation in philosophy had anything to say about this...

I'm tempted to say,Nothing I can think of. — jgill

Certainly hard to resist so you are forgiven for doing so.

How about an element of the empty set? — jgill

My question is does this 'mathematically' satisfy the notion?
For me, an 'element' is an existent. An empty 'set' invokes an empty container. The container is an existent. No existent can satisfy the notion of nothing, including the word 'nothing' as it is also an existent. I cannot see how there can be a valid state that we could label 'nothing.'
Nothing has no existent (which is a paradox).
The 'something from nothing' proposal makes no sense.

But does this mean (I'm asking semi-rhetorically) that the nothing you and I have in mind is impossible? — Manuel

I don't know, but I have the feeling that if we somehow got rid of the quantum vacuum, there'd be another turtle waiting in the wings.

Wondering if your own orientation in philosophy had anything to say about this... — Manuel

As a sometime pragmatist, I don't think my particular understanding has much to offer beyond "Who cares." As a pseudo-Taoist I guess all I could say would be "Were you not paying attention when I told you about the Tao." As for my understanding not associated with any particular philosophy - seems to me the universe always has been and always will be. It's a roiling, boiling whirlpool of this, that, the Tao, God, yada yada yada. Matter, energy, time, space, existence, something, nothing are all just different color paints of the graffiti on the subway cars of reality. Or something like that. No, I have no scientific or philosophical basis for that belief. It's what's known as seems-to-me philosophy or science. My favorite kind.

Sensible.

Well, in so far as there is something "beyond physics", which is my intuition, that guess is perhaps as good as any other.

that guess is perhaps as good as any other. — Manuel

I think the basis for this is primarily aesthetic. It just seems like it aught to be that way.

The 'something from nothing' proposal makes no sense. — universeness

Sure it does. The doughnut hole is something you eat and it is in 1:1 correspondence with the emptiness left by creating the hole in a chunk of cake.

No existent can satisfy the notion of nothing — universeness

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

:cool:

Ok prof, if you say so :yikes: but for me, spatial extension is not a good representation of nothing!
No doubt, in some theistic communities, that verse is irrefutable proof that god exists!
Anyway I am probably just not appreciating your subtle sense of humour.

Sorry. Just being frivolous! :smile:

Oh you easily earned the right to do that, years ago sir!
Nothing wrong with whimsy!

Yes. It does - we need to account for the existence of math, for instance, and whatever it is that math is a structure of. One assumes elegancy. Who knows?

I thought this post on Quora from Victor Toth was relevant to this thread and may offer some readers more balance from the scientific angle:

The question: Do "virtual particles" in a vacuum gravitate?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-does-nothing-weigh/

Victor's Answer:
You raise an interesting question, but before it can be properly answered, let me stress an important point.

“Virtual particles” are called such because they are not real. They do not exist. They are pieces of mathematical fiction. They are a convenient way to describe interacting quantum fields in the so-called perturbative limit, where nasty integrals can be series expanded into terms that can then be graphically represented by those nice Feynman diagrams, with the internal lines of the diagrams corresponding to our concept of virtual particles. As I said, mathematical fiction.

However, this mathematical fiction can indeed be used to describe fields, including fields in their lowest energy state, that is, the vacuum.

And one thing that follows from that quantum mechanical description is that not even the lowest energy state is a zero energy state. In fact, as there are infinitely many possible frequencies for a field, each of which with a corresponding lowest energy state, the sum total of these lowest energy states is infinite energy!

That, of course, won’t do, we can’t have infinite energy. So let’s take a leap of faith and assume that quantum field theory is only an “effective” theory, which breaks down at very high energies. So perhaps instead of summing all the way to infinity, we only sum to this high (e.g., the Planck) energy scale. The numbers now remain finite.

But when we add up those numbers, the result is still many, many dozens of magnitude greater than our actual observation, the so-called cosmological constant, which could be a manifestation of the lowest state energy of these fields in the vacuum.

This embarrassing discrepancy is known as the “cosmological constant problem”. It has no conclusive resolution.

Perhaps these ground states do not contribute to gravity at all. Perhaps something else screens or weakens their gravity. Or perhaps we misunderstood the whole kaboodle. No one knows for sure.

Now virtual particles (i.e., the fields that are represented by this mathematical convenience) definitely do gravitate in other situations. Take your own body. Most of your mass is in the form of protons and neutrons. And roughly 99% of those proton and neutron masses is from the interaction energy between their constituent quarks. Interactions that are mediated, you guessed it, by virtual particles (gluons in this case) in a sensible mathematical approximation.

But whether the vacuum or the virtual particles we use to represent the vacuum contribute to gravitation remains unknown for now.

I thought this post on Quora from Victor Toth was relevant — universeness

Toth is excellent. Sometimes Quora clarifies issues. A recent article explained entanglement in a way both appealing to intuition and illuminating: Two coins entangled, moved light years apart. One coin is tossed, coming up, say, heads. The other coin tossed comes up the opposite. Etc.

“Virtual particles” are called such because they are not real. They do not exist. They are pieces of mathematical fiction.~~ Victor Toth — universeness

Isn't that true of all mathematical physics?
The confusion is semantic. The philosophical technical terms 'real' and 'exist' as used here in a naive deliberately vague popular sense have nothing to do with physical fictional objects of convenience.

Toth is excellent. — jgill

I agree. He is good at explaining complicated Physics in ways that even lay folks can make some sense of. Science has no current demonstrable exemplar of 'nothing.' The only available placeholders are conceptual and mathematical (eg, 0 and word's like 'nothing'.)
Even when you use concepts like infinite regression, infinity, god, etc. None of these can demonstrate 'nothing.' This I think gives those like me, who think that an objectively true state of nothing and never existed. Perhaps 'a state of nothing' can exist if you can perceive no passage of time.
For example, 'my own death or non-existence' is my best notion of 'nothing' but that is also non-sensical as if I am non-existent then that's just a reframing of the same ineffable 'nothing' concept.

Probably a 'fair' description of the status quo of 'leading edge', 'mathematical physics,' yes. Virtual particles are mathematical inventions, but I don't think, velocity, distance, time, mass, energy, force etc, etc, are.

BUT at least the underlying application of the scientific method involved has the potential to make progress against the current gaps in our knowledge, we come up against. Theism and theosophism offer no progress at all, and have been 'feeding' from empirical science (since science became separated from the notion of 'natural philosophy',) as it's only hope for proving god exists.

As long as divine hiddenness remains fact, theists only have the unsupported claims of those who claim personal communication with (such as @Beena et al.) god/occupants of heaven etc and those who claim to have had prayers answers and have experienced/witnessed 'miracles' or manifestations of the supernatural. The only valid response to such claims will remain 'Yeah sure, if you say so, perhaps you should seek professional help.'

Empirical science remains theisms only hope of useful progress! Unless god stops being the utter coward it is and shows up.

Above came as a revelation to me from heaven. — Beena

This makes you sound irrational, in my view. I read something like this and it becomes that much easier to ignore it altogether.

Some friendly criticism. Welcome to TPF.