You can not have something out of nothing — Colin Cooper
It's not literally nothing causing these things. Nothing can't do anything, and they are one in the same as something. — neonspectraltoast
Claiming that virtual particles are a something out of nothing might be a bit of a metaphysical stretch. Please correct me if I am wrong, but virtual particles are considered to be short term perturbations in the quantum field, whereas as so called ordinary particles are long term perturbations. So, even virtual particles require the underlying quantum field. They may not have causes in a classical sense, whatever that might be, but they are not "somethings" from nothing.B: But here is a something out of nothing (virtual particles)
Funny, but a bit flippant. The easy retort is that what causes you to wonder where your handkerchief went is your finding nothing in your pocket. But your finding nothing in your pocket is very definitely not nothing.I have nothing in my pocket. It causes me to wonder where my handkerchief went.
That I am inclined to believe is the consensus amongst physicists, hidden variable theories having had their day. But I'm not sure it is causation that is really the heart of this issue for most people. In QM as well as classical physics, an event is an observable phenomenon. Events that can be explained using classical physics are usually taken to be those that have causes. Events that cannot be explained using classical physics, but which can be accounted for with quantum mechancial physics, are those which are deemed not to have causes. Nevertheless, even uncaused events have explanations. So, it looks like everything has an explanation. But what about the explanations themselves? Perhaps it is a category mistake to even pose the question whether an explanation has an explanation.Not every event has a cause
and inNothingness (from our perspective) is potential existence. — Possibility
andit is connected to "Dark Matter" — Colin Cooper
that thing was God. — CorneliusCoburn
what about the explanations themselves? — jkg20
I get the point, which is why I hinted at the possibility of a category mistake. It's late where I am, after some sleep I will try to think of some circumstances where it might make sense to ask of an explanation why it is the explanation. If there are any, then there will be some sense to the idea that an explanation has an explanation. To be honest, though, I'm not entirely convinced I'll be able to come up with anything, and even if I did whether it will be useful in proving the principle of sufficient reason.edit: oh, and perhaps in
what about the explanations themselves? — jkg20
So the all-and-some logic above applies to "every event has an explanation".
Intellectual honesty requires that we admit that we do not know.
...virtual particles are considered to be short term perturbations in the quantum field, — jkg20
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. — jkg20
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.