If you conceptualise nothing as a formless entity predicated on the absence of particulars, sure
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.Logic says that particles cannot be waves, — unenlightened
but logic doesn't say things, — Coben
So nothing is not simply nothing, it is also everything. — Zelebg
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. — Zelebg
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
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
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
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.Monkey and anti-monkey :rofl: space and anti-space? Time and anti-time? — unenlightened
Lawrence Krauss wrote a book 'demonstrating' how something can come from nothing. — Coben
Lawrence Krauss wrote a book 'demonstrating' how something can come from nothing.
Well, his explanation includes this same borrowing from nothing in two directions.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
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.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. — Relativist
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
Nowhere, nothing. I don't think there is such stuff. — Coben
Agreed. But a feature of time is not beyond time.But what is causality if it is not a feature of time. — Devans99
Not "beyond", but yes, of course there is no time prior to the state of affairs that is the first cause.So something from beyond time must be uncaused; it has no 'before' so it is by definition uncaused.
Nothing precludes existing at all points of time. For example, there's no reason to think the fundamental quantum fields will cease to exist.Nothing can exist permanently in time; that is impossible — 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.; it would have no temporal start point, so no temporal start point +1, no temporal start point +n, — 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.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
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
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
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.