Yet you still fall into the trap of believing that if you can not see it , it can not be . — Colin Cooper

Well, perhaps not. I'm not claiming there is nothing extraordinary here; only that our claims to put it into words fail.

Too many folk seek to cure their ontological shock by making stuff up. They find the cat that isn't there. See the other replies to your post. Folk are so uncomfortable saying "I don't know".

Although there is nothing in the mathematical world, there is no nothing in nature. If you propose pure emptiness, you haven't looked hard enough. :cool:

Thus begins somewhat of an inquiry as to what exactly is meant by nothingness, and the nature thereof. — CorneliusCoburn

Actually, the ancients really took a while to grasp the concept of nothing. Basically zero is the only coherent understanding of nothing that has ever been formulated. Apart from that, there's always something.

Meditation is there for the mind to produce nothingness inside and to see nothingness as pure

It's funny that we, as humans, believe we can imagine the absence of all being, yet even when we do we're technically imagining something. Which begs the question, can nothing exist? Even in order to exist it must be something

I used to argue with a twenty year veteran of Zen about no-thingness. He would declare that he reached a state of "empty awareness" completely devoid of object, to which I would reply that could not be true since he was aware of empty awareness itself. But Zen knows best I suppose. :roll:

Nobody can prove nothingness has no importance

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.

I could possibly accept there are microscale uncaused events, but uncaused macroscale events (e.g., earthquakes)? Those have causes, and the chain of causation leads all the way back to the beginning of the universe, so it would seem that the creation of a universe is probably not an uncaused cause.

I could possibly accept there are microscale uncaused events, but uncaused macroscale events (e.g., earthquakes)? Those have causes, and the chain of causation leads all the way back to the beginning of the universe, so it would seem that the creation of a universe is probably not an uncaused cause. — RogueAI

Given that all extant cosmological evidence indicates that it had a planck radius at "the beginning", the universe is a very-far-from-equilibrium "macroscale" effect of a primordial "microscale uncaused event" (i.e. quantum fluctuation), and therefore not a(n act of) "creation".

It all depends how you conceive of "nothing". If you break the word down to "no" and "thing" then it is possible that it describes chaos where no thing has formed, nothing to point at so to speak. However chaos is a source of potential for somethingness, it just requires will to organise it.

I think it is easier to think of chaotic non-linear thinking becoming organised as concepts bump into each other...as concepts bump into each other more will forms and the process accelerates. Hope that helps.:)

It all depends how you conceive of "nothing". If you break the word down to "no" and "thing" then it is possible that it describes chaos where no thing has formed, nothing to point at so to speak. However chaos is a source of potential for somethingness, it just requires will to organise it. — Chester

It's not clear what you mean by chaos exactly, but nevertheless, chaos would still be the chaos of something. It may even be a fact that chaos represents the absence of organisation, but that absense is not the ontological absence which 'nothing' typically denotes.

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. — Banno

This statement is completely wrong. The ex nihlio theories are central to Judaism and most forms of Christianity (Mormonism excepted). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo . I don't know enough about Islam, but I'd expect the same. That is, quantum indeterminacy didn't rock the religious world. It rocked the scientific one, to the extent it challenged the long standing belief that, given sufficient data, we could predict all future events. Quantum indeterminacy has also been used to try to explain free will (a necessary religiuos concept) by some.

Pointing to the complexity and unpredictability of the universe is not a way to disprove religion. The way you disprove religion is to point out It was never proven in the first place. Such is the difference between faith and the scientific method.

(editing this i accidentally pressedsave)

Nothing is stateless, so it also can't be theorized unless we understand it by most common descript, void. That is not even information. It is a pre information circumstance. Something is a state at least. Any something, including us trying to theorize nothing, rely on the beginning referal, and make that jump that nothing is. It is a pre beginning time more accurately. It can possibly be theorized.

Thus it is definitely something and the law of nothing, or to be faced with a moral choice.

Potential and possibility are around.

Given that all extant cosmological evidence indicates that it had a planck radius at "the beginning", the universe is a very-far-from-equilibrium "macroscale" effect of a primordial "microscale uncaused event" (i.e. quantum fluctuation) it seems to me, and, therefore, not a(n act of) "creation".

Yes, you have an easy to understand causal chain for any normal event, all the way back to the beginning of the universe, and then at some point, the causal chain ends at some uncaused cause? That's going to be a hard sell. I don't think invoking planck raiduses is very convincing. Science has so far succeeded wildly about explaining things. We should expect that to continue in cosmology, not end with an uncaused cause.

Virtual particles render something coming from nothing a physical commonplace.

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

In the context of the universe as it is. The something here would not just be the particles, but whatever the rules or possibilites (or necessities ) of the nothing that allows for this, or perhaps, better put, includes this things coming out of nothing. To me that's something. And also somewhere.

Virtual particles do not appear from nothing. They are a result of energy converted into mass. So, we can't find 'nothing' there either.

Virtual particles do not appear from nothing. They are a result of energy converted into mass. So, we can't find 'nothing' there either. — emancipate

I've never thought of quamtum indeterminacy as evidence of spontaneous creation. It's an epistemological claim of what we can determine or know, as opposed to a metaphysical claim that particles just spontaneously come from nothing.

Virtual particles do not appear from nothing — emancipate

They seem to appear in calculations, but whether they exist as real physical entities may be questionable.

I'll add a few comments here:

First, and has been stated, "quantum vacuums" are not nothing, but something. "Nothing" is best described as "absence of being" so the question isn't "how do we get from quantum vacuums to the universe we see today" but rather "why is there anything at all (including quantum vacuums)." Krauss' book performs a bait-and-switch tactic where he pretends to answer the latter but only addresses the former.

I recommend everyone check out David Albert's review of Krauss' book: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

Second, the idea that only religious people believe "nothing comes from nothing" is simply false. Albert is agnostic and has no religious axe to grind, he is just stating the obvious.

Third, therefore the mostly likely scenario is that there has always been something. Debating what that something is (God, some supernatural entity that isn't God, some fundamental particle etc.) is the subject for a different thread, but it seems pretty clear that at rock bottom, there must be something that exists as a metaphysical necessity.

:up:

but it seems pretty clear that at rock bottom, there must be something that exists as a metaphysical necessity. — Michael Nelson

The fact that there is a world does not mean there has to be a world.

The physical world is contingent, yes, but there must be something at metaphysical rock bottom for anything to exist at all.

Ultimately though, what transpired was openness to plausibility of a something from nothing scenario over that of an eternal thing, or a little of both, maybe.

Thus begins somewhat of an inquiry as to what exactly is meant by nothingness, and the nature thereof. — CorneliusCoburn

Something cannot come from nothing. Something in the classical world of material objects (as were perceived them) can come from a quantum system that lacks such objects.

That is the so-called "something from nothing" scenario that have been postulated by some physicists, like Laurence Krauss, Alexander Vilenkin, and Sean Carroll.

Third, therefore the mostly likely scenario is that there has always been something. Debating what that something is (God, some supernatural entity that isn't God, some fundamental particle etc.) is the subject for a different thread, but it seems pretty clear that at rock bottom, there must be something that exists as a metaphysical necessity. — Michael Nelson

An a posteriori necessity, right?

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

hahaha ok! Could particles pop into existence from nothing before the big bang? Now that's one Id really like to hear on, lol

The physical world is contingent, yes, but there must be something at metaphysical rock bottom for anything to exist at all. — Michael Nelson

If, as you say, "the physical world is contingent" - and I agree it is - then, it seems to follow, "the physical world" coming-to-be was uncaused, it continuing-to-be is uncaused, and it ceasing-to-be will be uncaused as well; and so, therefore, "at metaphysical rock bottom" there's randomness (i.e. omni-symmetrical, fluctuating, void), no? Furthermore, this randomness isn't a mere "something" - one thing among other things - but rather is 'everything' insofar as every "something", being contingent, presupposes it. If not, what am I missing?

If not, what am I missing? — 180 Proof

Probably nothing. But it strikes me that at the metaphysical bottom all you got is language, with all problems thereunto appurtenant.

Nor do I have suggestions for alternatives. I do note that science has been a relentless language breaker for at least, well, maybe for as long as there has been modern science. Which suggests to a gentle spirit that maybe part of the enterprise should be just listening, and then trying to fit language to phenomenon.

I agree with you 180 Proof that at bottom there must be something uncaused and non-composite, something that is capable of actualizing everything else without itself needing to be actualized, something upon which everything, ultimately, depends, but itself has no dependencies.

But I don't think it is right to say that that contingent things are uncaused. For example: you and I are contingent, but we have immediate causes (our parents). Moreover, some argue that not only do contingent things have no power to create themselves, but they have no power to remain in existence without something else sustaining it (e.g. a purely actual actualizer or unmoved mover).

This statement is completely wrong. — Hanover

You lost me. Not following how what you said relates to the bit you quoted.

What about Humdinger's cat?