A friend of mine is trying to explain his theory of “nothing” through quantum mechanics. My feeling is that the very nature of quantum mechanics precludes it from doing this and that we can only approach it through philosophy. — Brett

I don't know what your friend means by "nothing", but Quantum Theory seems to have dispensed with the ancient Atomic theory, with its irreducible solid particles as the fundamental "things" of the world. In place of atoms, QT now postulates amorphous "Fields" containing "Virtual" particles. The Fields are merely mathematical concepts with no actual physical properties -- only the potential for real things to emerge when activated by a mysterious "disturbance".

Even the dimensionless Points that make-up the invisible Field pattern are nothing-but mathematical definitions. So scientists and philosophers argue about their realness. To me, Virtual Particles are not Things in the sense of actual physical objects. Instead, they are merely statistical potentials (probabilities) that have the power to exist (in a future state) under certain conditions. Some would call that "Potential" a form of Energy, that has not yet been Actualized into Matter.

So, are mathematical concepts Real? Are statistical probabilities physical Things? Both definitely "exist" in the form of mental concepts. But in what sense is that a real Thing? I would answer that Potential particles are Real only in a Metaphysical sense. Hence, I agree that discussions of "Fields" and "Virtual Particles" have crossed-over from empirical Science into the domain of theoretical Philosophy. So, a Virtual Thing is as close to Nothing as we can get in the Real world. :smile:


Virtual Particles : Thus virtual particles exist only in the mathematics of the model used to describe the measurements of real particles . To coin a word, virtual particles are particlemorphic, having a form like particle but not a particle.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185110/do-virtual-particles-actually-physically-exist

Are Quantum Fields Real? : It means that the electron isn't a particle at all. It's not something you can put your finger on and declare, "the electron is here, moving with this particular speed in this particular direction." You can only state what the overall properties are, on average, of the space in which the electron exists.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/11/17/ask-ethan-are-quantum-fields-real/?sh=24a458a6777a

Aristotle on Potential : Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality

Virtual :
* Traditionally, the term "virtual" meant possessing virtues or qualities apart from physical properties. In computer science, "virtual" refers to software apart from hardware. In Physics, "virtual" describes the mathematical or statistical state of a waveform in a field before it is actualized as a particle. A "virtual" particle is defined as . . . not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle."
* The term “Virtual” in physics is analogous to “Spiritual” in meta-physics. In the Enformationism theory, it is equivalent to Qualia, apart from Quanta. The Quantum Mechanics term "Virtual" is equivalent to "Potential" or "Ideal". For example, virtual particles are merely mathmatical definitions with no material instances, until they are Actualized by an observation. Similarly, in Ideality, a Platonic Form has no physical examples until Realized by an intention. In both cases, the will of a mind triggers the transition from nothing to something.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page20.html

In Physics, "virtual" describes the mathematical or statistical state of a waveform in a field before it is actualized as a particle.

(seek and ye shall find) not religious, an effort to appease the church

The term “Virtual” in physics is analogous to “Spiritual” in meta-physics.
Quantum entanglement may not be so spooky albert!

Thanks. That does explain where my friend is coming from. However the idea of Quantum Theory having crossed over from empirical science into the realm of theoretical philosophy seems to me a bit of a get-out-of-jail card. Not to mention the idea that you suggest of

a Virtual Thing is as close to Nothing as we can get in the Real world — Gnomon

It all looks a bit slight of hand.

a Virtual Thing is as close to Nothing as we can get in the Real world — Gnomon
It all looks a bit slight of hand. — Brett

I don't think the pioneers of Quantum Theory intended their "standard" Copenhagen Interpretation to be a smoke & mirrors explanation. But even the powerful imagination of Einstein concluded that Non-local Entanglement sounded like "spooky action at a distance". He also objected to the notion that particles could exist only statistically, rather than physically : "God does not play dice". Ironically, Isaac Newton, as a scientist, was concerned that his notion of Gravity sounded like mysterious action at a distance, which could only be explained as an act of God. But, as a Christian, he was OK with that.

So, although Quantum Theory is generally considered to be a reliable explanation for how things work on the quantum scale, why they work that way is still a mystery. In my personal worldview, Enformationism, I find that a broader universal definition of "Information" can dispel some of that spookiness in physics, by seeing that it exists in both Physical (matter) and Meta-physical (energy ; power to enform) states. :nerd:

spooky action : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance

NEWTON, GOD, AND GRAVITY : https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi3012.htm

What Does Quantum Theory Actually Tell Us about Reality? : Nearly a century after its founding, physicists and philosophers still don’t know—but they’re working on it
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between knowledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

he Fields are merely mathematical concepts with no actual physical properties -- only the potential for real things to emerge when activated by a mysterious "disturbance". — Gnomon

Not quite, we can see the form of magnetic field lines using iron fillings. That's how fields came to be part of physics in the first place.

Not quite, we can see the form of magnetic field lines using iron fillings. That's how fields came to be part of physics in the first place. — Marchesk

Like all forms of energy, you can see the effects of fields, but not the fields themselves. They exist as immaterial mathematical statistical relationship patterns, that tend to organize matter into certain physical patterns. The field lines in iron filings are "representations" of the field, not the field itself. We see the material form, but not the Enformer. :smile:

Magnetic field lines are a visual tool used to represent magnetic fields.
https://brilliant.org/wiki/magnetic-field-lines/

The Fields are merely mathematical concepts with no actual physical properties -- only the potential for real things to emerge when activated by a mysterious "disturbance". — Gnomon

Speaking of the line between virtual and physical instantiation, you guys should look into spinors. I've been tripping on them for days, apparently their mathematical form can be used to model orbital phenomena such as we find with electrons in atoms, but though the algebra works out perfectly, no one understands them structurally.

Its also interesting to consider that waves do not oscillate in two or three dimensions but up to sixteen or more dimensions. I wonder if an experiment can be designed to observe or explain the parameterization of supradimensional wave oscillation in nature, what kinds of field interactions generate which varieties of wave.

This is difficult stuff for me. Well the experiments are anyway.

The following quote, is it a standard possibility for Quantum Theorists ?

“Young’s experiment, when done with single photons or even single particles of matter, such as electrons and neutrons, is a conundrum to behold, raising fundamental questions about the very nature of reality. Some have even used it to argue that the quantum world is influenced by human consciousness, giving our minds an agency and a place in the ontology of the universe.” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/what-does-quantum-theory-actually-tell-us-about-reality/

theory of “nothing” through quantum mechanics. My feeling is that the very nature of quantum mechanics precludes it from doing this and that we can only approach it through philosophy. — Brett

fields themselves. They exist as immaterial mathematical statistical relationship patterns, that tend to organize matter into certain physical patterns — Gnomon

Mathematical patterns are hypothetical after the fact descriptions. How could they organize anything else but other numbers? Similarly, physical patterns are hypothetical and arise from the minds of physicists. But matter is something we feel, touch, smell, taste with our material senses. The same problem seeps into the problem of nothing and the vacuum. They are just fundamentally different concepts that we are trying to blend into one.

Speaking of the line between virtual and physical instantiation, you guys should look into spinors. — Enrique

Spinors are way over my pay grade. But, it seems that they are merely Vectors that rotate under certain circumstances. And Vectors are not real things, but Virtual representations of potentials. They are mathematical notions with no "physical instantiation". We can imagine them as geometric concepts, but -- like magnetic fields -- we only "see" them by inference from their effects on matter. :smile:

Some have even used it to argue that the quantum world is influenced by human consciousness, giving our minds an agency and a place in the ontology of the universe — Brett

Yes. Exactly how & why a mental measurement "causes" changes in physical objects is still a mystery, and a topic of debate among Scientists, Philosophers, and Parapsychologists.

In my Enformationism thesis, I refer to the Latin word for "to measure" (-mensura), which comes from the root (-mens) meaning "Mind" or "Intellect". So, I infer that a quantum measurement is an extraction of Information (knowledge, meaning) from the target. And, just as Energy adds Information to something, Measurement (inference) subtracts Information. This notion works metaphorically & metaphysically, but I don't know how it might work physically.

In physics, both positive & negative actions cause a change of some kind in the target acted-upon. And the causation can be imagined as an exchange of causal Information. Of course, this mind-power interpretation may not make sense, if you are not familiar with the general Enformationism thesis : that everything in the world is a form of Generic (universal) Information --- which, in its energetic form, I call EnFormAction .

If this causal relationship between Mind & Matter is true, then the mind does have the power of causal agency in the physical world. But, the history of Psychokinesis (moving objects with the mind) has produced no reliable evidence that the mind has effects on the macro scale of the world. So, perhaps the mind's use of Information only works on other minds, and on the micro-scale of the physical world. I don't claim to know for sure how the trans-form-ation occurs. :nerd:

Latin: mens, mentalis -- mind, intellectual faculties; mental; memory
https://wordinfo.info/unit/1289

EnFormAction : Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy. It’s the . . . creative power of Evolution; the power to enform -- Energy, Causation, Logos; Change.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

What is EnFormAction? : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html

Causal Information :
https://www.mis.mpg.de/ay/index.html?c=projects/causality/causality.shtml

Psychokinesis : Bending keys and spoons with the mind is a simple magic trick, involving misdirection. The "magic" is in distracting the observing mind : Mind over Mind.

Mathematical patterns are hypothetical after the fact descriptions. How could they organize anything else but other numbers? — magritte

They work their magic via statistics. Probability is a way to predict the future state of a system via the math of Normal Distribution (Bell Curve). Even random chaotic patterns have some essence of order that can be determined mathematically. Much of modern Science is based on the faith that statistical analysis is an accurate approximation of Actual or Potential physical patterns. Quantum Theory indicates that what we interpret as physical objects on the macro scale are ultimately intangible mathematical patterns and interrelationships of virtual (metaphysical) reality --- imagined as fields of one dimensional points. Ultimately, all things are forms of mathematical Information. How do I know that? I have a thesis. :joke:


Statistics : the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.

But matter is something we feel, touch, smell, taste with our material senses. The same problem seeps into the problem of nothing and the vacuum. They are just fundamentally different concepts that we are trying to blend into one. — magritte

Do you mean they are onto something or trying to make the impossible happen?

So, I infer that a quantum measurement is an extraction of Information (knowledge, meaning) from the target. And, just as Energy adds Information to something, Measurement (inference) subtracts Information. — Gnomon

Are you suggesting then that Measuement/ inference is a human action and so has an affect on the physical world?

In physics, both positive & negative actions cause a change of some kind in the target acted-upon. And the causation can be imagined as an exchange of causal Information.

If this causal relationship between Mind & Matter is true, then the mind does have the power of causal agency in the physical world. — Gnomon

Are you suggesting then that Measuement/ inference is a human action and so has an affect on the physical world? — Brett

Not necessarily. It's possible that the Universal Observer (measurer) is God, as proposed by Berkeley :

There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."

Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."
___Ronald Knox

In any case, I'm not convinced that the human mind has direct power over the material world. Mind-over-matter notions such as Psychokinesis have not produced any empirical evidence. But, since the minds of human scientists are just as much a part of the real world as quantum particles, I can't deny that there may be some indirect influence. For example, when a scientist decides to shoot an electron at a quantum scale object, the electron's energy is a significant proportion of the object's mass. It might be like shooting a naval vessel with a ship-size shell --- that would make a pretty big wave function, followed by measurable effects. :joke:

Consciousness Causes Collapse : The von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, also described as "consciousness causes collapse", is an interpretation of quantum mechanics in which consciousness is postulated to be necessary for the completion of the process of quantum measurement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation

Quantum physical empiric evidence for a universal observer :
http://101.0.115.80/~thedebri/articles/natural-theology/universal-observer-quantum-physical-evidence/

"nothing and the vacuum. They are just fundamentally different concepts that we are trying to blend into one." — magritte
Do you mean they are onto something or trying to make the impossible happen? — Brett

I'll take it from the top,

A friend of mine is trying to explain his theory of “nothing” through quantum mechanics. My feeling is that the very nature of quantum mechanics precludes it from doing this and that we can only approach it through philosophy. — Brett

I agree with you that 'nothing' can only be discussed sensibly in philosophy. Something like the vacuum is not properly part of the philosophical lexicon, OTOH it is also the case that quantum mechanics only encompasses its own mathematical-physics constructs and thus 'explaining' the philosophical concept 'nothing' is not within its scope.

Nothing has many possible meanings. Here I take it to mean universal nothing which is the absence of the conceivable Universe, where conceivable includes anything physicists can conceive and more. The problem is the more part. Philosophically universal nothing really means nothing, nothing at all.

But even looking at the vacuum there is a problem. The vacuum cannot be physically empty, cannot be physically the equivalent of nothing. There is a deep difference between philosophy and QM here. Philosophers are always searching for some underlying substance, material or otherwise. Physically the Universe consists entirely of various forms of potential energy which has no philosophical existence.

I think this friend of mine is using Quantum theory as some sort of metaphor he can jam into philosophy.

As I've said previously, the noun "nothing" in English is special, in that it means different things in different sentences, but almost never refers to some discrete thing unto itself. "There's nothing to eat" does not mean there is actually one foodstuff, that we're calling "nothing". It's simply "logical_NOT(something is available to eat)".
This is always worth bearing in mind when discussing the "nothing" topic.

More specifically on quantum explanations, the issue I have is this:
An understanding should mean that we can make useful predictions and inferences. A good understanding on the ultimate ontological question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is no exception.

If we understood how a universe can have a beginning, we should be able to answer questions like "Why does another universe not spring into existence right now in my kitchen?". There are infinite "nothings" in the spaces between matter in my kitchen, after all. The common response to this might be that that is not what is meant here by "nothing"; what is meant here is the absolute nothingness where no universe exists yet.
But, in that case, how can we apply quantum physics spontaneous matter generation, because that is a process which happens within an existing spacetime. We have no reason to suppose it can / did happen when there was nothing and it created spacetime...that's a wholly different thing, not part of the model at all.

disclaimer: I'm not religious, I don't think "god" works as a solution to this intractable problem either.

I think this friend of mine is using Quantum theory as some sort of metaphor he can jam into philosophy. — Brett

Well then I have to agree with your friend 110% or more. Although nothing is nothing like being the two being categorically distinct.

A friend of mine is trying to explain his theory of “nothing” through quantum mechanics. My feeling is that the very nature of quantum mechanics precludes it from doing this and that we can only approach it through philosophy. — Brett

Your friend may be making a distinction between the physicist's concept of relative "nothing", and the philosopher's notion of absolute "no-thing".

When physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote his book, A Universe From Nothing, his "nothing" turned-out-to-be nothing-but amorphous Energy & Laws. Yet even the energy was imagined as a seething Quantum Field bubbling with Potential Energy, in the form of Virtual Particles. However, Aristotle made a pertinent distinction between Actual & Potential things. In his theory of HyleMorphism (Form + Matter), the Potential "Form" was essentially a timeless/spaceless intentional design concept, while the Actual "Thing" was a spacetime material object.

As I interpret Krauss, his "Form" (sculptor, designer) aspect took the form of Natural Laws, while the "Hyle" (marble, material) was plenipotential-but-aimless Energy, that could be converted by an act of en-formation into various forms of Matter. So, his "nothing" was something with eternal creative Potential, for which he carefully avoided using the traditional pre-scientific term "God", or the juristic term "Law-giver".

Technically, for philosophers, "nothing" is non-being. But for theologians, God is eternal BEING (the power to exist and to create). Yet for materialist Scientists, "nothing" must be something --- because "nothing comes from nothing". Still, they don't think of that initial creative power as a First Cause, because that would imply an intentional Causer, or Creator. Instead, they imagine the original essential "something" as a forever cause, with no ultimate explanation --- it just is; statistical probability (Potential) is "nothing-but" . . . . . . . . :smile:


What do physicists mean when they talk about nothing? : when physicists talk about nothing, they mean empty space (vacuum). This may sound straightforward, but experiments show that empty space isn't really empty – there's a mysterious energy latent in it which can tell us something about the fate of the universe.
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-physicists.html

Avoiding the Void : Aristotle strongly disagreed with the "atomists." To him, “Nature abhorred a vacuum”: the void was impossible.
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/11/17/131383533/avoiding-the-void-a-brief-history-of-nothing-ness

A Universe from Nothing : nothing upsets the philosophers and theologians who disagree with me more than the notion that I, as a scientist, do not truly understand “nothing.” (I am tempted to retort here that theologians are experts at nothing.) ___JACOB BRONOWSKI
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B008383GE8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

What do physicists mean when they talk about nothing? : when physicists talk about nothing, they mean empty space (vacuum). — Gnomon

Krauss is full of bullpucky. He presupposes the laws of physics and the quantum soup, neither of which are nothing. He's another one of these dumb smart guys. Much taken with himself. "Look how clever I am," is his message to the world.

Your friend may be making a distinction between the physicist's concept of relative "nothing", and the philosopher's notion of absolute "no-thing". — Gnomon

He seems to lean towards the physicist’s concept of “nothing”.

From my friend:

“The vacuum contains an infinity of virtual particles embedded in a foamy space time matrix.”

“Nothing contains the power to make everything.”

“A vacuum is not empty, it contains space time.”

I’m trying to work out if he’s clear in what he’s telling me. Or if he’s mixing things up a little for the sake of his idea on “being”.

In relation to your post this seems to be my friend’s position.

So, his "nothing" was something with eternal creative Potential, — Gnomon

Instead, they imagine the original essential "something" as a forever cause, with no ultimate explanation --- it just is; statistical probability (Potential) is "nothing-but" . . . . . — Gnomon

“The vacuum contains an infinity of virtual particles embedded in a foamy space time matrix.” — Brett

I could rephrase that assertion as : the vacuum is spacetime with no material extension or physical change, but only the un-actualized Potential for containing things. Virtual Particles are not real things but the statistical mathematical property of potentiality to become something. A "foamy space-time matrix" sounds like a good gimmick for a Science Fiction story : "I took a bubble bath in empty space". :grin:

Newton's conception of Space, the existence of space, or extension, follows from that of anything whatsoever; but extension does not require a subject in which it "inheres", as a property; and it can be conceived as existent without presupposing any particular thing, God included.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension_(metaphysics)
Note : Newton rejected the eternal "extension" hypothesis as atheistic.

“Nothing contains the power to make everything.” — Brett

No-thing comes from nothing. The Vacuum is nothing-but empty Potential. It is Zero Point energy with zero power -- until nothingness accidentally or mysteriously "fluctuates". :wink:

Potential : Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.

Vacuum Energy : Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. Its behavior is codified in Heisenberg's energy–time uncertainty principle. Still, the exact effect of such fleeting bits of energy is difficult to quantify.

Implicate Order : Bohm believed that there was a deeper reality beneath the quantum level, a subquantum field he called the quantum potential.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

“A vacuum is not empty, it contains space time.” — Brett

The Vacuum is an empty container, which contains empty space-time. :razz:

The container theory of space is a metaphysical theory according to which space is a background against which objects rest and move, with the implication that it can continue to exist in the absence of matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_space

In relation to your post this seems to be my friend’s position. — Brett

So far, his "position" on Nothing is nowhere. He's trying to define "Nothing" in terms of "Something". He needs to explain the "deeper reality" that is "uncertain" and "difficult to quantify". Bohm was accused of taking a mystical metaphysical stance on physical reality. The uncertainty of Quantum theory has forced Materialistic Scientists to think in terms of philosophical Metaphysical concepts. :cool:

No-thing comes from nothing. The Vacuum is nothing-but empty Potential. It is Zero Point energy with zero power -- until nothingness accidentally or mysteriously "fluctuates". :wink: — Gnomon

This “fluctuation”, I think he regards this as when things become unbalanced. But I can’t get a clear understanding of what causes the imbalance, because surely we have to maintain this on a physics level and not suddenly switch to “something”?

This “fluctuation”, I think he regards this as when things become unbalanced. But I can’t get a clear understanding of what causes the imbalance, because surely we have to maintain this on a physics level and not suddenly switch to “something”? — Brett

What scientists call a Quantum Fluctuation is "temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space". The key concepts here are "random", meaning Un-caused, and "change", meaning Causation. So, there seems to be an inherent contradiction between the presumption of acausal randomness and the unbroken Chain of Causation, which is a common assumption of philosophers & scientists, but implies Determinism.

So, I would say the "fluctuation" may appear Random, because there is no evident specific prior cause. But, in order to make sense, there must always be some cause for every effect. And the most general cause in the physical world is Energy. Thermodynamic Energy is literally an "imbalance", an unequal ratio of Hot vs Cold, so to speak. So, when nothing is changing we must assume that the situation is balanced. But what causes that imbalance of Potential (un-actualized power)? I won't go into the gory details here, but one answer to that question is Intention, which is a disposition or inclination in one direction or another. But then, who or what is the Intender????? :chin:

Chain of Causation : And they nearly always assume that physical causes are the only kind of causes that could really matter in a scientific explanation of anything. But how can this be, when talk of causes only rarely arises in physics, and talk of "causal chains" is practically nonexistent? Won't this imprecision inevitably lead to confusion?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/70930/is-the-idea-of-a-causal-chain-physical-or-even-scientific

Energy :
Scientists define “energy” as the ability to do work, but don't know what energy is. They assume it's an eternal causative force that existed prior to the Big Bang, along with mathematical laws. Energy is a positive or negative relationship between things, and physical Laws are limitations on the push & pull of those forces. So, all they know is what Energy does, which is to transform material objects in various ways. Energy itself is amorphous & immaterial. So if you reduce energy to its essence of information, it seems more akin to mind than matter. Likewise, all we know of God is what it does : create. That's why I think of Energy as the “power” aspect of the willpower of G*D, which is guided by the intentional (lawlike) “will” aspect. Together I call them : EnFormAction.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Intention : In order for anything to happen, there must be a slight imbalance, an inclination, an intention, a choice.
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page76.html

Gnomon
Neutrinos are things that travel through my vacuum
Their existence is recognized by their effect
Much like human interaction
One doesn't have to be visible to have an impact

So, there seems to be an inherent contradiction between the presumption of acausal randomness and the unbroken Chain of Causation, which is a common assumption of philosophers & scientists, but implies Determinism. — Gnomon

Determinism is what I’m trying to draw his attention to, which he dodges.

So, I would say the "fluctuation" may appear Random, because there is no evident specific prior cause. But, in order to make sense, there must always be some cause for every effect. — Gnomon

From what I understand from him these fluctuations are random. From his point of view they could not be anything else because that would require, as you say, an unbroken Cause of Causation.

His idea seems to be that something throws things out of balance is because something causes the imbalance. Which is just circular.

But what causes that imbalance of Potential (un-actualized power)? I won't go into the gory details here, but one answer to that question is Intention, which is a disposition or inclination in one direction or another. But then, who or what is the Intender????? :chin: — Gnomon

This is the crux of my enquiry. My friend was raised in a very religious family. At some stage he broke away from their beliefs and declared he was an atheist. My feeling is that he isn’t, that he has moved sideways to this theory he has, unconsciously or not, that requires an intender, which he cannot admit to. If I ask for that he goes back to the beginning, so we keep going in a circle.

So, I would say the "fluctuation" may appear Random, because there is no evident specific prior cause — Gnomon

the most general cause in the physical world is Energy. — Gnomon

From what I understand from him these fluctuations are random. From his point of view they could not be anything else because that would require, as you say, an unbroken Cause of Causation. — Brett

Philosophically, they would be random, since there is no point before or outside of what is Eternal for input/design.

Scientifically, Anton Zeilinger claims to have shown that randomness is the bedrock of reality, to several sigma.

For any finite volume over any finite time interval, there is always a probability of field excitations. But even without those excitations, the field itself -- the potential for particles to emerge -- exists. 'Nothing' would suggest to me no such fields, not just no local excitations. It seems nonsensical to me to claim there are quantum mechanical arguments for this.