Virtual particles render something coming from nothing a physical commonplace.

Particles pop into existence from nothing all around you, all the time.

So what happened? The ancients (the idea goes back much further than a couple of decades) saw that one thing caused another, and decided that everything must have a cause. But that conclusion was an induction from their observations, and hence strictly invalid. Indeed, it's been show to be wrong by observations of atomic decay.

But the notion that everything has a cause was used to defend religious dogma, and hence has a strong adherence amongst the faithful; and adherence that will not be shaken by mere truth.

Watch what happens here next... those who defend the notion that nothing can come from nothing will overwhelmingly do so in order to protect their religious views.

So the proper context for this 'nothingness' would be that as a sort of abstract idea. This 'nothing' would be approached as the universe is regressed to its primordial origin.

I don't believe I have arrived at any scenario via this regression that results in a state of complete and absolute nothingness, but rather an acausal chain that functions in and out of time, ad infinitum.

So the universe is regressed to a point(no pun) prior to the aethereal expansion(inflation). Which results in a type of zero volume existence, or, zero dimensional point.

So this primordial zero volume existence would serve to engage some sort of elaboration as to what is meant by 'nothing', but not currently 'nothing' as in an 'absence of everything' scenario.

Something can't come from nothing.
There is something.
There was always something.

Nothingness (from our perspective) is potential existence. Something (ie. a particle) comes into existence from an interrelation of this potentiality.

Whether or not you consider potentiality to be ‘something’ that exists is a matter of conceptualisation. But potentiality is not an actual thing.

So this "potentiality" could not only exist in the absence of space, but in the absence of time as well?

yes

A static eternal state of nothingness?

A static eternal state of nothingness? — CorneliusCoburn

Potentiality is a five-dimensional existence. It’s four-dimensional aspect would appear as a static, eternal state of nothingness.

You can not have something out of nothing , even a particle proton comes from somewhere , we just don't understand yet , last I read about them they theorize it is connected to "Dark Matter" , all of which needs to be proven . The Human Brain has limitations on what we can actually comprehend , we can not comprehend the notion that there was no beginning and is no end , everything we see exists in a cycle , from life to nature to the cosmos , with a start and a ending , we now transfer these ideas on to our new interpretation , its all just a transfer of energy , nothing ever dies , just a transfer of energy , yet still we can not except that there was no beginning , that its always been . there has to be a start , something out of nothing . I do not profess to have the answers but I do believe it has always been and will always be .

Potentiality moves by spontaneity. Like with particles moving in sinc with no causation. There might be a compatabilism explanation for a physical law behind phenomena, but it goes back thru a finite series of casual motions into the ghostly haze of potentiality

So are we transferring the problem of infinite regression from a four dimensional spacetime continuum to an acausal continuum where there exists 'nothingness' between each of an infinite array of manifestations, or, universes?

Potentiality is a five-dimensional existence. — Possibility

Really? Why? How do you know this?

You can not have something out of nothing , even a particle proton comes from somewhere , we just don't understand yet — Colin Cooper

Perhaps this is just wishful thinking on your part? Virtual particles do give us something from nothing. And accepting that has not brought physics crashing down around us.

Like with particles moving in sinc with no causation. — Gregory

SO there are uncaused events. Cool. I agree.

I think potentiality both exists and doesnt, so something comes from nothing and something at the same time. But yes Banno, I agree there is no causality in the origin of the universe. Potentiality naturally becomes real

Potentiality naturally becomes real — Gregory

Is this an explanation, or a nonsense, or a play on words?

Language is there to express ideas. That's what it does. To many the idea of absolute nothing producing something without there being some action is completely nonsensical. I struggle with it too

And yet if you talk of potential, you have to talk of potential for some thing... in reifying potential, it feels like you have an explanation, when all you have is a bit of antigonish language.

You just hate philosophy and a search for intellectual wisdom

Then why am I condemned to keep returning to this godridden forum?

The fucking flies will not learn the way out of the bottle.

Questions about the origin of the universe are not meaningless

Questions about the origin of the universe are not meaningless — Gregory

Sure. Cosmology is a very interesting branch of physics. But that's not what you are doing.

It's impossible to explain the world without getting into philosophy

Hence, it is impossible to explain the world.

And silence follows.

Your idol is Wittgenstein obviously, who by the way was a rude man who would run out the room like a little bitch because he didn't have the patience to do philosophy and come back claiming he found a sickness in language itself. His position was not intelligible

(Banno reaches for his poker...)

Perhaps nothingness is unattainable, like infinity. In math we routinely set x=0 in formulae, but math is an intellectual exercise and doesn't necessarily describe nature precisely. Even in math there are little number critters just to the right of zero on a scale, but to the left of any positive real number. These infinitesimals arose from the minds of Leibnitz and others long ago. Maybe in some crazy way they connect with the virtual particles of physics (although I have my doubts). So, entities below the Planck scale may surround a hypothetical nothing, which doesn't really exist.

Hey, just babble in the time of the Plague. :cool:

So are we transferring the problem of infinite regression from a four dimensional spacetime continuum to an acausal continuum where there exists 'nothingness' between each of an infinite array of manifestations, or, universes? — CorneliusCoburn

Well, there is no convincing evidence that either spacetime or the potential of our universe (in relation to energy, at least) is infinite. Rather, evidence suggests that both concepts are probably finite.

I have considered an infinite possibility or pure imagination/meaning as a sixth dimensional aspect of existence, to which we can only relate as possible manifestations in an amorphous ‘structure’ of perceived potential (ie. mind). But this is pure speculation at this level - and I’ll admit it’s an extremely flimsy notion. All I’m doing is proposing a relational structure, and then finding ways to test and refine it.

Causality is temporally-defined: a four-dimensional awareness of what are atemporal relations in potentiality. But we have no reason to assume an array of spatially distinct universes, separated by ‘nothingness’.

I think if we get away from assuming that all dimensional aspects of reality are primarily spatial in nature, then we may realise that they’re also not structured as simply as the nested hierarchy of physics-chemistry-biology suggests. Many relational structures of the universe are primarily chemical or qualitative in nature, including sensory phenomenon.

Potentiality is a five-dimensional existence.
— Possibility

Really? Why? How do you know this? — Banno

I don’t. I’m not about to pretend I have any way of objectively proving the theory. It makes sense from my limited understanding of quantum field theory, in relation to my limited understanding of dimensional structure. I’m open to testing the logic, though.

If you could lay out your logic for us, we will be able to test it. I cannot speak for Banno, but I think I have sufficient knowlege of pure mathematics and the technical aspects of quantum mechanics to follow along and at least know at which points to start asking for clarifications.