If you conceptualise nothing as a formless entity predicated on the absence of particulars, sure

If true "nothingness" to you is however the absence of comprehension itself, something that cannot be given a word, something that cannot be described something that makes the notions commonly associated with the word 'nothing' feel like a pebble thrown in to the ocean, then perhaps not.

Because you would not find a relation between your conceivable somethings and the nothing.
If you had this view when I say the word nothing you would feel as if I am not talking about anything, anything atall, for it is impossible to know what it is.

It is like saying what would there be if I took away everything? Would there be nothing?
I don't think its far fetched to say contemplating nothing doesn't exist, the moment you think of whatever you are confusing with nothing, it becomes something.

If there were no particulars to observe, how would we formulate an idea of what would be without them?
Once we attribute some thought to the common idea of "nothing" it isnt nothing anymore.

I don't believe in proof of particulars myself, I only believe there that there is proof that there is.

Furthermore I like to say that what exists rather 'exists' independant of how we structure it in our minds, and that true nothing is not something we can comprehend.

I don't think anything is undeniable other than the statement that there is.

Jacob

If you conceptualise nothing as a formless entity predicated on the absence of particulars, sure

I mean in its literal or physical sense. There is an aspect of testable reality there. Namely, the reason why things are mostly neutrally charged. Also, that is how metal can be magnetised and demagnetised - if orientation of all the magnetic dipoles is uniformly chaotic they cancel each other, just like -x + x = 0.

Or keep electron and positron at the same point in space and you will walk through them, would not be able to see them, detect or interact with them in any way. Effectively, practically, they will be nothing, Now, if practically nothing is still not nothing, then in what way it can be something, or anything?

That's not nothing. That's a lot of laws and patterns. You used the word 'superposition', which means that there were potentials. There was some tendency, which had the superpostion collapse. You had a situation. That is not nothing.

If nothing could simply split into -x and +x, it could also split into -monkey and +monkey. Not particles or singularities. Two monkeys, one an antmatter monkey appears. But only certain things could appear. There were rules and structures in whatever you are calling nothing. And they ain't nothing.

In general, it is ill-advised to try and tell the world what it can and cannot do according to your ideas and symbols. Rather, let the world tell you how to operate your ideas and symbols so as to conform to what it does.

Yes, potential, which is abstract concept, it is not really a.thing, so it is no-thing. I'm not talking about quantum vacuum, virtual particles, or any such QM spooky stuff. This is classical physics, the fields literally cancel out to produce pure nothing, just like -x + x = 0.

-monkey + monkey = 0, it computes!

Well, the fact that it is not monkey and -monkey means there is something that is there making it not monkey and -monkey. Also in Classical physics you do not have nothing. Things there are no anti-things in classical physics.

And it is not just potential, it is laws or rules, or tendencies. Which is not nothing. In our world which is something, you have what we call potential, which is really just a shorthand term for built up energy and the like, NOT abstractions. Nothing cannot have all these qualities and be nothing. It is some kind of thing.

Who r u responsing to?

The thread title; my aim is to block the discussion entirely. It's a silly game that does not clarify the language, and does not have any impact on physics. Logic says that particles cannot be waves, but the world does what it likes, and sensible people change their ideas to suit.

To imagine that the rules of language or mathematics can overrule the world is called 'magical thinking'.

Logic says that particles cannot be waves, — unenlightened

Well, I think the thread is silly but logic doesn't say things, it demands certain relationships between statements, and statements and conclusions. Our conclusions are only as good as our premises and what seems obvious to us is not always correct. Or logic would have ruled out a roundish earth or relativistic effects.

but logic doesn't say things, — Coben

We agree exactly. It can be made to appear to say something 'there can be no up without down', but this is only a linguistic rule, not a law of nature.

Monkey and anti-monkey :rofl: space and anti-space? Time and anti-time?

There is this hypothesis that ties in with the theme of the OP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

But I feel it cannot explain the origins of the universe:

1. Some driver for the creation of matter from negative gravitational energy is required. So it cannot be a true something from nothing event; something must pre-exist it to act as a trigger.

2. If something can come from nothing naturally and past time is infinite, then matter density would be infinite by now, which is clearly not the case. So 'something from nothing' mandates a start of time which would be the creation event of the universe.

0 = -x + x.

So nothing is not simply nothing, it is also everything. — Zelebg

Dualistic thinking. Delete nonsense (mine, not yours)

The zero energy universe explains inflation (the big bang) and all that ensued. It does not entail an infinite past. The only thing it does not explain is the existence of the quantum system that could inflate. But of course, it seems inevitable that there would be SOMETHING unexplainable at the root of it all: neither is there an explanation for a "God's" existence.

To imagine that the rules of language or mathematics can overrule the world is called 'magical thinking'.

Every addition and subtraction equation directly maps to the real physical world. If you look at it from that perspective it would be really strange equation “-x + x = 0” suddenly doesn’t correspond to reality, and the real mystery is then how can there exist ‘anti-things’, what are they, where are they. And if we find antimatter exist, then that proves the equation is indeed true in metaphysical sense as well.

Every addition and subtraction equation directly maps to the real physical world. — Zelebg

Draw your map according to the world, not the world according to your map. Map and world are not at all the same kind of thing.

0 = -x + x

This means two things, and it is actually not quite “something comes out of nothing”. It really means superposition of everything is equal to nothing, not identical and not because it is actually nothing, but because it is effectively nothing.

Totally chaotic arrangement of everything cancels out itself, it is there but without an effect or defined form in any direction or dimension. It means nothing actually implies everything, it can not exist without it like there is no black without white.

No yang without yin. So nothing is not simply nothing, it is also everything. And another duality is that what comes out of that “nothing” can not be just any old something, it must be paired into two opposite some-things. It’s undeniable! — Zelebg

First, duality. Why is it that the concept of duality has emerged in both Eastern and Western thought? Daoism has yin-yang, Buddhism has the middle-path and Heraclitus too spoke of opposites and don't forget Aristotle's golden mean. If this means anything then it must be that the dualistic model is more than just a culturally idiosyncratic point of view and that it's a good representation of reality.

We can only guess the origins of dualistic thinking but one thing is clear: duality is about extremes. Look at dualistic pairs e.g. hot-cold, large-small, create-destroy, etc. Each pair expresses extremes of a particular property a thing may possess: hot-cold are extremes of temperature, large-small are extremes of size, create-destroy are extremes of existence, etc. Given this is so, what do we make of the in-between stuff e.g. between hot and cold is warm, between large and small is medium, between create and destroy is preserve, etc.

The existence of words that capture the stuff between dualistic pairs betrays the fact that dualistic thinking doesn't quite give us the correct or, if you prefer, the complete picture of reality. Nevertheless, dualistic pairs do provide a useful guide to where we should place ourselves in the universe - right in the middle where things are comfortable and exciting because all phenomena seems to occur between lower and upper extremis points. Life, as we know it, must avoid extremes to survive. In a sense then, all the dualistic philosophers I mentioned were deliberately or unwittingly affirming the Goldilocks zone for life. This also means, quite oddly, that dualistic thinking is an implicit claim of not a duality but a trinity, the positive, the neutral and the negative; it is best conveyed by the Hindu trinity of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver and Shiva the destroyer.

One more thing I want to mention is the concept of negation; it has the ability to split the universe into two, a thing that is affirmed and the rest that is negated. Is this duality? Yes, because an entity and its negation are definitely opposites and no, because these opposites aren't always extremes. The negation of cold is not-cold and that, despite referring to the dualistic opposite hot, also refers to warm. This isn't useful since it fails to point to the other extreme. Imagine if the words "hot" didn't exist and someone were to claim that a cup of coffee is not-cold. Is that enough information for you to take a sip of the coffee? No, the coffee could be hot and could burn your mouth. Negation, though technically dualistic in nature, isn't adequate; we need a separate dualistic worldview based on explicit consideration of extremes.

Secondly, the matter of nothing, something and everything. You made an amazing argument and I really liked the -x + x = 0; expressing duality mathematically makes the whole issue clearer. I'd like you to imagine a world made of 6 things: a, -a, b, -b, and c, -c. Everything would be {a, -a, b, -b, c, -c}, and something would be a combination of these but not all of them. Nothing would be again {a, -a, b, -b, c, -c} because every object and its opposite would cancel each other. So, everything is nothing.

Duality would impose the condition that everything have an opposite and that includes everything itself and also nothing. What is the opposite of everything and also the opposite of nothing? If one is to be dualistic then we have to talk in terms of extremes; if we take everything as one extremis what would be the other extremis? Wouldn't it be nothing? Your mathematical treatment of the matter produces a beautiful answer to the question.

Everything (e) = nothing (0)

Opposite of everything = -e

1. e = 0
2. -e = -0 = 0 = e
3. -e + e = 0
4. e + e = 0 + 0 = 0 = e

The opposite of everything is nothing and that too because everything is nothing.

My concern is whether a mathematical representation of the issue is apt or not. Can I speak of duality in terms of positive and negative numbers?

Well, nothing, something and everything appear quantitative and we can express it mathematically as follows: nothing (0) < something (at least 1 but not all) < everything (the entire universe). This is an accurate mathematical translation as far as I can see but it lacks the positive-negative feature of numbers your argument has. Notice that in my mathematical model, dualistic thinking assigns the opposite of everything as nothing since they're extremis points. However it doesn't allow me to conclude that nothing is everything as your model with positive and negative numbers does.

Anyway, if there's any problem with the -x + x = 0 model of reality, it's the reliance on negation to "take care of" the stuff in between -x and +x since, generally speaking, there are no opposites for the in-between: for instance hot and cold are opposites but there is no such thing is an opposite for warm unless you say not-warm but that creates 2 possibilities, hot or cold, raising the count of states that can be obtained to 3 which is not a duality but a trinity. Perhaps it's a trivial truth.

What else?

It really means superposition of everything is equal to nothing, not identical and not because it is actually nothing, but because it is effectively nothing. — Zelebg

Given no point for Everything to have any input, since it can't have a beginning, it must be everything in a superposition because it cannot be anything particular.

Indeed, as it somehow plays out to us, it doesn't remain as anything particular even for an instant.

Effectively, the information content of Everything in superposition and Nothing are both zero.

Or keep electron and positron at the same point in space and you will walk through them, would not be able to see them, detect or interact with them in any way. Effectively, practically, they will be nothing, — Zelebg

Like Zelig? :smirk:

But of course, it seems inevitable that there would be SOMETHING unexplainable at the root of it all: neither is there an explanation for a "God's" existence. — Relativist

There is an explanation for God's existence; he is uncaused because he is from beyond causality, IE beyond time.

Monkey and anti-monkey :rofl: space and anti-space? Time and anti-time? — unenlightened

I hope my point with the antimonkey was clear at least to someone. The so called nothingness was able to separate out into opposites. That's a nothing with qualities, and so not a nothing. Those opposites weren't monkeys, they were particles or waves or branes or whatever current theory is. So, that nothing had even more specific qualities. Lawrence Krauss wrote a book 'demonstrating' how something can come from nothing. In fact, I think he went so far as to say it must, though it's been a while since I read it. While he's a physicist, his book had the same problems this thread does.

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book 'demonstrating' how something can come from nothing. — Coben

Given that there is something, where can it have come from? I suggest nowhere, rather than nothing. Nowhere separates out into somewhere and anti-somewhere. Bla bla bla, gimmie a book deal.

Lawrence Krauss wrote a book 'demonstrating' how something can come from nothing.

His nothing are laws of quantum physics and quantum vacuum. That is not nothing, it’s lame attempt at explanation that does not explain. I guess you could say we are describing the same thing, but I think what I said actually explains or at least makes more sense.

I say logically nothing can not exist by itself like black can not exist without white. I’m saying nothing and everything is one thing with two sides. It is everything that can manifest as practically and effectively nothing by cancelation, if everything is uniformly chaotic.

So default mode of everything is to exist as nothing. And then, for some reason, in all the chaos some dimensions of everything interlock in harmony and establish a stable attractor state. This part of harmonic everything then materializes as something, something like big bang I guess. It’s consistent with Greek mythology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_(cosmogony)

Good luck, why not. Nowhere, nothing. I don't think there is such stuff.

His nothing are laws of quantum physics and quantum vacuum. That is not nothing, it’s lame attempt at explanation that does not explain. I guess you could say we are describing the same thing, but I think what I said actually explains or at least makes more sense. — Zelebg

Well, his explanation includes this same borrowing from nothing in two directions.

I don't see any evidence that the universe had a beginning. (the Big Bang was certainly a change, but there is no evidence there really was nothing or nowhere. ) And it seems to make more sense that it's always been around. I suppose that's my default. Now I get that what I just put forward is my intuition and no one has any reason to buy that. However I see no need to start showing that nothing can lead to something, and there has been a trend away from starting from nothing in cosmology.

The universe can only have one of the following as its average long term behaviour:

1. Expanding. This is what science says.
2. Contracting. Impossible. One big black hole
3. Steady state. Impossible. Leads to 2
4. Cycling. Impossible. Loses energy on each cycle, leading to 3 then 2

Any expanding universe must have a start in space and time (see BGV theory).

There is an explanation for God's existence; he is uncaused because he is from beyond causality, IE beyond time. — Devans99

That doesn't explain God's existence it just asserts that he's uncaused. Any first cause is uncaused, so this alleged "explanation" is equally applicable to any first-cause state of affairs.

The first cause cannot be "beyond" causation, it obviously must be the initial point in a continuous causal chain. Nor can it be "beyond time", because causation reflects change over time - there can be no causation without an elapse of time.

You will undoubtedly rationalize all this, but it will require making just the right assumptions that preclude a natural first cause while permitting a supernatural one. But this doesn't actually prove anything.

That doesn't explain God's existence it just asserts that he's uncaused. Any first cause is uncaused, so this alleged "explanation" is equally applicable to any first-cause state of affairs. — Relativist

But what is causality if it is not a feature of time. So something from beyond time must be uncaused; it has no 'before' so it is by definition uncaused.

Nothing can exist permanently in time; that is impossible; it would have no temporal start point, so no temporal start point +1, no temporal start point +n, it does not exist. Because there is something in the universe, it follows that something from beyond time must exist.

You will undoubtedly rationalize all this, but it will require making just the right assumptions that preclude a natural first cause while permitting a supernatural one. But this doesn't actually prove[/] anything. — Relativist

I think we have been here before. A natural cause implies the universe is a dumb mechanical system. Dumb mechanical systems cannot start themselves without input from an intelligence and end up in equilibrium. The universe has movement; so it cannot be a dumb mechanical system; there must be an intelligence behind it.

Nowhere, nothing. I don't think there is such stuff. — Coben

"Stuff"? I have a strong theory about stuff - that everything's got to be somewhere sometime. And if it isn't, it isn't stuff. Accordingly, there is indeed no such stuff as space or time or nothing. Shimples.

But what is causality if it is not a feature of time. — Devans99

Agreed. But a feature of time is not beyond time.

So something from beyond time must be uncaused; it has no 'before' so it is by definition uncaused.

Not "beyond", but yes, of course there is no time prior to the state of affairs that is the first cause.

Nothing can exist permanently in time; that is impossible — Devans99

Nothing precludes existing at all points of time. For example, there's no reason to think the fundamental quantum fields will cease to exist.

; it would have no temporal start point, so no temporal start point +1, no temporal start point +n, — Devans99

Here's the assumption I anticipated. You assume there cannot simply be an initial state of affairs at an initial point of time. As I said, you're rationalizing your prior belief, not showing it must be true.

I think we have been here before. A natural cause implies the universe is a dumb mechanical system. Dumb mechanical systems cannot start themselves without input from an intelligence and end up in equilibrium. — Devans99

Yes we have, and that why I knew your argument was dependent on convenient assumptions. Here you have pontificated another - asserting, without proof, that an intelligence must be behind it. You also seem to be stuck in a classical (non-quantum) view of physical reality.

Basically, you choose to believe in God, so you choose to believe things that preclude other possibilities.

Nothing precludes existing at all points of time. For example, there's no reason to think the fundamental quantum fields will cease to exist. — Relativist

We have established separately that there is a start of time. The start of time requires a cause. An uncaused cause. Quantum fields I feel are part of spacetime and so I doubt they can preexist spacetime (there is no time/space for them to fluctuate in).

Yes we have, and that why I knew your argument was dependent on convenient assumptions. Here you have pontificated another - asserting, without proof, that an intelligence must be behind it. You also seem to be stuck in a classical (non-quantum) view if physical reality. — Relativist

A start of time needs a cause from from beyond spacetime. Each cause requires a prior cause. The chain of causes cannot stretch back forever; ultimately we must arrive at an uncaused cause. An uncaused cause must be able to effect things without being effected itself; IE self-driven, IE intelligent.

QM is the science of the microscopic; the origin of the universe is a macroscopic tale.