No, I think you are having trouble understanding the issue. It is a given with everything we know that no natural process can create something out of nothing. It is also impossible to even prove that natural (or supernatural for that matter) process to create something out of nothing. — dclements

There are quantum fluctuations, albeit they don't last long.

I agree that the most that can be done is to challenge what is written about God. As the thread discussion suggests, proving or disproving God is 'difficult' and I would go further and say it is impossible. As you suggest, no holy book can give us an explanation of the underlying laws of nature. I also wonder what is meant by 'nothing' because it does not appear to us but, perhaps, there is more to 'nothing' than what it appears because as it cannot be observed it may be hard to know how or in what way to describe it, and, perhaps, it is something rather than nothing. — Jack Cummins

Nothing is what is outside of the universe?

There are quantum fluctuations, albeit they don't last long. — Michael

There are two issues with quantum fluctuations and why we can not claim that they do not create energy from nothing:

* The empty vacuum of space is really not empty and the ephemeral particles and/or quantum foam that
barely exists in this emptiness can change states just enough to make it appear as if matter/energy is
popping into and then out of existence. At least that is one theory.

* Even "if" these virtual particles don't enable the quantum fluctuations to pop into and out of existence it
is a given that some other energy, force, or thing could be causing quantum fluctuations to pop in and
out of existence. In a way saying this is more or less a stopgap measure or even a "cheat" if you will
for stopping anyone from getting too excited about being able to create something from nothing.

It is a given that most of the time we have at least an idea or theory of something creating something we see that comes into existence (which is like what I explained in my first argument), but even if we don't have a clue as to what is causing something to exist or happen (such as in the big bang, ghosts, telekinesis, psychic powers, magic, etc.) we can always turn to the second argument/stopgap measure which more or less just states that anything that we observe existing or appearing to come into existence but we are unaware of what causes it to be nor imaginative enough to come up with even a theory as to why it may be, we can simply just say that something that we are unaware of is causing it to be and at some undefined time in the future we should know more about it to either know how it exist or if we still don't know we may have developed a theory as to why it may be. It is more or less a given that scientist can ever sit back and say "Oh, this thing is created from nothing" because there is an infinite number of things that need to be checked before anyone can say that about any given thing or process.


Can we create energy from nothing?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/610275/can-we-create-energy-from-nothing
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-800-can-we-get-energy-from-nothing/
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-01_NutshellReadmore.html

1. This Permanent Thing would be local everywhere, as it is before and after our universe and during. Further, as it's the only thing, its rearrangements are it too; even we are it. — PoeticUniverse

I agree. That's why I define my personal First Cause simply as BEING : essential existence. Aquinas defined his God as the Necessary Being, without whom nothing (no beings) would exist. It's the "only thing" that exists absolutely. So simple unitary existence must be the beginning point of all theories of how & why the space-time world exists. Some postulate that space-time/matter-energy is eternal, but the Big Bang cosmology --- including the Big Freeze finale --- put a damper on such speculations. And physical Nature has never been shown to create something from nothing.

So, if we accept the logic of First Cause or Necessary Being, we can assume, without fear of contradiction, that some universal creative agency existed prior to the beginning of Space-Time. That said & set though, the "hard problem" is to determine what that hypothetical "permanent thing" was, in a more definitive sense. Reductionists & Materialists prefer to imagine that it was more-of-the-same forever : turtles-all-the-way-down. But Holists & Idealists lean toward Meta-physical & Essential answers to ultimate questions. Unfortunately, neither side can prove their pet theory, empirically or logically. So, it comes down to a matter of opinion and preference. For my money though, the eternally un-changing Ideality answers make more sense, than anything resembling our temporal and ever-changing impermanent Reality.

Ironically, most religious god-models are based on imperfect impermanent human features. That's why I prefer philosophical non-physical god-theories, such as those of Aristotle & Aquinas. :nerd:


Does modern cosmology prove the existence of God? :
The Kalam cosmological argument asserts that everything that exists has a cause, and what caused the Universe? It's got to be God.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/modern-cosmology-god/

Kalam Cosmological Argument :
1. whatever begins to exist has a cause,
2. the Universe began to exist,
3. and therefore the Universe has a cause to its existence.

G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole of which all temporal things are a part is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.
I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Entention is what I mean by G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

No, I think you are having trouble understanding the issue. It is a given with everything we know that no natural process can create something out of nothing. It is also impossible to even prove that natural (or supernatural for that matter) process to create something out of nothing.

One can say it is possible for a "supernatural process"( a process that breaks one or more of the physical laws that have applied to every natural process that human have observed throughout history)
to create something from nothing but you CAN NOT state with any authority that something CAN come from nothing from either a "supernatural process" or otherwise because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something can come from nothing. — dclements

Indeed it would be impossible to empirically prove "supernatural", but same way it doesn't make sense to ask for empirical (natural) proof to prove supernatural.

As for religious portion of your post I'll abstain from turning this into a religious debate.
In any case I'm not trying nor searching for any proof beyond philosophical. :smile:

There are quantum fluctuations, albeit they don't last long. — Michael

That would be virtual particles,

Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs.

Quantum fluctuation

To my understanding virtual particles came and go out of existence in very short time (almost instant).
Interestingly, 2 videos are in contradiction regarding that, one say virtual particles are something, other says it's used to go beyond big bang, so it's again not something out of nothing.

The empty vacuum of space is really not empty and the ephemeral particles and/or quantum foam that barely exists in this emptiness can change states just enough to make it appear as if matter/energy is popping into and then out of existence. — dclements

You have it backwards. The vacuum of space isn't "really" empty because quantum fluctuations happen.

Even "if" these virtual particles don't enable the quantum fluctuations to pop into and out of existence it is a given that some other energy, force, or thing could be causing quantum fluctuations to pop in and out of existence.

It could be, but we have no evidence of such a thing. In fact, quantum fluctuations as something-from-nothing are a consequence of the uncertainty principle which we have many reasons to believe is true.

I agree. That's why I define my personal First Cause simply as BEING : essential existence. — Gnomon

The 'Essential Existent' is a good label for what has to be. I've also called it the External Existent' or 'G.O.D'—the Ground of Determination.

Aquinas defined his God as the Necessary Being, without whom nothing (no beings) would exist. It's the "only thing" that exists absolutely. — Gnomon

Aquinas makes an unwarranted leap here to a Being having Mind because he wants 'God'.

So simple unitary existence must be the beginning point of all theories of how & why the space-time world exists. — Gnomon

That's better; I hope Aquinas is listening. It's not only simple as a necessity for its forming of the lightweight elementaries but also because its needs to be partless and continuous to be Absolute as Fundamental. It would not be able to think, plan, and create via a System of Mind as the ultimate simplicity; however, so it is that the lesser leads to the greater, not as Aquinas' view that is the reverse and would lead to an infinite regress of greaters making lessers.

Some postulate that space-time/matter-energy is eternal, but the Big Bang cosmology --- including the Big Freeze finale --- put a damper on such speculations. And physical Nature has never been shown to create something from nothing. — Gnomon

The whole darn universe is temporary. Stability decreases on upward and only photons remain at the end, for they don't decay by themselves.

the "hard problem" is to determine what that hypothetical "permanent thing" was, in a more definitive sense. For my money though, the eternally un-changing Ideality answers make more sense, than anything resembling our temporal and ever-changing impermanent Reality. — Gnomon

'Is', not 'was'. It's enough to know that it's the simplest possible, it being the closest to Null that could be. It's extremely far from Full, for as Full it could not rearrange.

G*D : An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. — Gnomon

G*D—God Damn! To boldly jump to it having Mind is a leap much more than a tiny quantum jump.

As for there just being a plain old Big Bang, that would have been any old unbalanced useless happening. Inflation is likely needed just before the Bang to make a universe balanced as well as Big to have a chance; however, since the Essential Existence is always around there are a heck of a lot of chances.

Minds and their great accomplishments only come about later on, all their temporary glories doomed.

Indeed it would be impossible to empirically prove "supernatural", but same way it doesn't make sense to ask for empirical (natural) proof to prove supernatural.: — SpaceDweller

If you wish to believe whatever you want to believe what you say might be true, but in order for what you believe to stand up to the scrutiny of other people arguments you have to be able to have some way to prove what you say has some validity. Otherwise as my fellow forum member 180 Proof has often pointed out:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens"

If you want to postulate the existence of "supernatural" processes in some way you have to something to support your argument or position. Otherwise people can dismiss it as just as a personal belief that doesn't have any merit behind it.

As for religious portion of your post I'll abstain from turning this into a religious debate.
In any case I'm not trying nor searching for any proof beyond philosophical. :smile: — SpaceDweller

Well you choose the title of this thread to be "Can theory of nothing challenge God?" and with such a title it kind of safe to assume that we would be discussing either how the theory of nothing challenges the belief in God or how similar theories do.

It is plausible that you choose that title just to create some kind of "click bait" and never was really interested in listening to anything that might challenge your belief in "God" and if so that is really your issue and not mine. However I'm simply trying to explain the situation to you to the best of my knowledge and provide you with the answer you may or may not be pretending to seek.

I may be wrong but if you or someone else really want to if theory of nothing in way can challenge the notion or the belief in "God" you should just gloss over part of the discussion just because they don't want to get into a religious debate because it is pretty much a given that any thread involving something that might challenge the notion of "God" is going to be a religious debate from the get go.

Fair point :up: but far from "click bait"

The true reason why I started this thread is because theory of nothing is relatively new theory that is obviously not well defined, and for which I believed is good one to understand what was there before BB if there ever was anything.

But I wouldn't dismiss anything however uncertain it may be, because in the end if you dismiss everything then what do you have left to work with? I guess "nothing" :meh:

Your links and propositions indeed helped me to get better understanding, thanks!

You have it backwards. The vacuum of space isn't "really" empty because quantum fluctuations happen. — Michael

You may say it potato and I say it potato or vice-versa but there really isn't a difference as far as I can tell. The thing I read explained that how quantum fluctuations where possible because in the ether of vacuum of space the space isn't really "empty" (ie it requires some kind of matter/energy to exist) and because it isn't empty it can create quantum fluctuations. What it sound like is how it was explained to you as that we can deduce that the vacuum of space isn't because it allows for quantum fluctuations to happen. I don't know which is a more accurate description as I'm not one who has studied the field of quantum physics, but I'm not sure if it really makes a difference and/or if it really relevant to this discussion. If it is please explain it further or point out a source that does.

It could be, but we have no evidence of such a thing. In fact, quantum fluctuations as something-from-nothing are a consequence of the uncertainty principle which we have many reasons to believe is true. — Michael

I think you misunderstand the facts that you read and are merely assuming something due to some misunderstanding. The thing I have up to now have be calling "process theory" (because I couldn't remember what it was really called) is really called the "Conservation Law" in physics. There is even a wiki page about it and such:
======================================================================
Conservation law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
"In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time. Exact conservation laws include conservation of mass (now conservation of mass and energy after Einstein's Theory of Relativity), conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of electric charge. There are also many approximate conservation laws, which apply to such quantities as mass, parity, lepton number, baryon number, strangeness, hypercharge, etc. These quantities are conserved in certain classes of physics processes, but not in all.

A local conservation law is usually expressed mathematically as a continuity equation, a partial differential equation which gives a relation between the amount of the quantity and the "transport" of that quantity. It states that the amount of the conserved quantity at a point or within a volume can only change by the amount of the quantity which flows in or out of the volume."
======================================================================

If you are ready to jump down the rabbit hole and want to find if anything can break the conservation law and similar laws of physics I wish you luck. Right now I'm a little too tired to research the subject and what I have come across suggests that most people that have something like a PhD in theoretical physics disagree with your argument that quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy. If you can show me some evidence that quantum vacuum fluctuation does violate the conservation of energy then let me know.

(Here is a link to explanation by a guy with a PhD in the field where he explains why vacuum fluctuation violate do not the conservation of energy. His explanation is a bit to long for me to cut and paste it into this post.)
Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?
https://www.quora.com/Does-quantum-vacuum-fluctuation-violate-the-conservation-of-energy

What is the difference between:

"Can theory of nothing challenge God?"
and
"Can nothing challenge God?"

Aquinas makes an unwarranted leap here to a Being having Mind because he wants 'God'. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. As a Catholic theologian, his philosophical definition had to resemble the official Bible-God, which is described both as an eternal principle (similar to Brahman or Tao), and as a humanoid person, with some un-god-like human attributes, such as a fragile ego, and a quick temper (like Zeus). Nevertheless, I find his rational philosophical God to be closer to my own than the typical bible-thumper's hell-fire War-Lord of the World. But, I actually go back to Aristotle's non-religious ideal principles for my god-model.

BEING (being qua being) would not "have" a mind or brain, but would be The Mind, in the sense of containing & processing all of the information necessary to create a space-time world from scratch (i.e. physical world from meta-physical design -- an idea & a plan). Philosophical god-models are usually abstract & potential, as opposed to the Religious deities that are concrete & actual.

Brahman :
In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest universal principle, the ultimate reality in the universe.

Tao or Dao is a Chinese word signifying the "way", "path", "route", "road" or sometimes more loosely "doctrine", "principle" or "holistic beliefs". Wikipedia

That's better; I hope Aquinas is listening. It's not only simple as a necessity for its forming of the lightweight elementaries but also because its needs to be partless and continuous to be Absolute as Fundamental. It would not be able to think, plan, and create via a System of Mind as the ultimate simplicity; however, so it is that the lesser leads to the greater, not as Aquinas' view that is the reverse and would lead to an infinite regress of greaters making lessers. — PoeticUniverse

In my worldview, the First Cause (Creator) must be eternal (timeless) and simple (in the sense of atomic Holism). However, in order to produce the space-time world --- that we know & love, and grumble about --- the Cosmic Cause must have the infinite Potential to subdivide the whole into subordinate parts, while remaining more than the sum of the parts. And the power to create beings that not only have living bodies, but also thinking & planning minds. Consequently, a physical deity would not suffice. Only a metaphysical BEING could be "partless and continuous" (no elementary particles). In order to be Eternal and Necessary and Creative, that First Cause would have to comply with Aristotle's metaphor of a Seed of Potential. The seed is not a tree, but it contains coded information (DNA) that can be transformed into a full-grown tree.

Potential vs Actual :
This connects the matter/form distinction to another key Aristotelian distinction, that between potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (entelecheia) or activity (energeia).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#ActuPote

'Is', not 'was'. It's enough to know that it's the simplest possible, it being the closest to Null that could be. It's extremely far from Full, for as Full it could not rearrange. — PoeticUniverse

My hypothetical G*D "is" and always was. It's simple, in the sense of an undivided Whole, but in order to create, must have the power & potential to produce a physical world, not from Material, but from Ideas (Information). Since G*D per se is no-physical-thing, it is "Null" in terms of actual things. However, it must also be All-metaphysical-things in the sense of creative Potential. Hence, "Full" of unformed possibilities.

G*D—God Damn! To boldly jump to it having Mind is a leap much more than a tiny quantum jump. — PoeticUniverse

Yes! Absolutely. If the First Cause did not have the Power to conceive a world,, how could human minds emerge from the rough & tumble of mindless Evolution. The conceptual leap is from a humanoid god-concept to an abstract philosophical principle :Mind qua Mind = intellect, consciousness, thought

The Philosophical Principle : being qua being.

Conceive : 2. form or devise (a plan or idea) in the mind.

What is a first principle in philosophy? :
A first principle is a foundational proposition or assumption that stands alone. We cannot deduce first principles from any other proposition or assumption.

Being Qua Being :
Metaphysics is the study of "being qua being", or the study of attributes that belong to things merely insofar as they exist, e.g. existence, unity, sameness and difference.

BEING (being qua being) would not "have" a mind or brain, but would be The Mind, in the sense of containing & processing all of the information necessary to create a space-time world from scratch (i.e. physical world from meta-physical design -- an idea & a plan). — Gnomon

Still can't have 'The Mind' as First and Fundamental even as a Potential that thinks as much as an Actual; complexity can't be just sitting around already complete.

Besides, the universe is full of intelligent design, and forms and proceeds just like the natural would: Deuterium bottleneck, 98% hydrogen gas tuned, long Cosmic evolution time, long biological evolution time, species going extinct, humans nearly too, a big asteroid opening up space for mammals to evolve into humans…

Biological evolution doesn't swing the necessity toward 'God'; it is a design without a designer, for the platforms from which change can lead a way forward are always already stable as a fallback as it roughs, tumbles, and stumbles through slow accumulation onto millions of creature species.

There is no effective supernatural, hyperphysical, distinct nonphysical realm that can't speak the physical talk; no magic, just the usual pipe dreams of a largest making for the smaller—we note the opposite as the actual progression.

The temporary universe decays and ends as the failure that its beginning ultimately meant: zip. It probably fades because there can be no infinite precision, no lasting ultimate information put in, and no way to foresee the n-body problem to create something lasting. All its mutable complex glories and triumphs die, but the Simple remains.

Hail to the transient, those grand complexities to which the Simple pales in comparison!


The Permanent and Its Temporaries
&
Unity in Multiplicity
&
The One and the Many
&
Change and the Changeless
&
Especially
The Constant Demise of the Mutables

(Inspired by Shelley and his style, and altering a few verses)

Weep for the temporaries; they all fade,
Those transient bubbles blown and burst
Through their brief lives, of the Permanent made.
Oh, weep for the ephemeral dispersed,
Sad hours all, throughout the months and years,
To mourn their steady loss with flowing tears;
Teach them o’er the morrows thine own sorrow
For the yesterdays they could only borrow
From the One’s everlasting simplicity.
Oh, weep for the unsteady, born to flee!

For now, their light echoes and lights the path
Continued that they added to, onto more
Evanescences walking Time’s footpath,
Til Past has been forgotten by Future.
Oh, limited Mother, their tales best
Thine by far e’en in their impermanence,
But Thou can’t save them from their final rest,
For they are chained to time’s changing tense.
Thou cannot rekindle their faded breath,
Those melodies that hid coming death.
Like the flowers that mock the corpse beneath,
The Enduring cloaks their extinguished wreath.

With veiled eyes, newer moments weep despair,
While spreading forth their own emergences;
Dream not that the Eternal Deep can their air
Restore, for the makeshift must progress, spent.
The universe has to continue its race,
Unwinding, like a spring, at time’s fixed pace,
In which star-generations are born and perish,
Giving their lives for all we can cherish.
Energy’s Hunger stalks all creatures made,
Lying ever just ‘round the corner in the shade.

Death takes both humans and the beetle as one,
After their lives are spent from rolling some dung.
Living clouds wane, having outwept their rain;
The pale inconstants must e’er pass their reign.
Like mist’s pageantry on an autumnal night,
As a slowing pomp, all events made light
Decay: Desires, Adorations, Destinies,
Glooms, Splendours, Sighs, Hopes, Fears, and Phantasies.
Pleasure hails, blinded by tears and sorrow:
“You took from Death all that Life could borrow.”

Like our shades dance the walls of Plato’s cave,
We’re 3D shadows of 4D’s enclave…
It’s like a lamp lights up a paper shade—
We are as figures thereupon portrayed.
We are magic lanterns shining here; 
Our spirits are the lights in there.
We’re the One’s Candled Magic Shadow-Show,
In which we Phantom Figures come and go.
Come, light your lantern and mine with good cheer;
We’re magic lamps; our spirits dance in here.

We are phenomena’s projected face,
Well-painted from noumena’s unseen base.
From what bright star came the gleam in your eyes? 
From what distant sun came your smile, light-wise?
Our minds and senses interpret and dispense
The base reality into the colors and sensations
Of the phenomenal world from the noumenal;
We may become either rainbows or ugly stains!
Our beginnings and ends are of nowhere,
So, let’s radiate, since for now we’re here!

Ending by Shelley himself:

The One remains, the many change and pass;
Heaven’s light forever shines, Earth’s shadows fly;
Life, like a dome of many-colour’d glass,
Stains the white radiance of Eternity,
Until Death tramples it to fragments.—Die,
If thou wouldst be with that which thou dost seek!
Follow where all is fled!—Rome’s azure sky,
Flowers, ruins, statues, music, words, are weak
The glory they transfuse with fitting truth to speak.

If you are ready to jump down the rabbit hole and want to find if anything can break the conservation law and similar laws of physics I wish you luck. — dclements

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy.

Potential vs Actual :
This connects the matter/form distinction to another key Aristotelian distinction, that between potentiality (dunamis) and actuality (entelecheia) or activity (energeia).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/#ActuPote — Gnomon

Paragraph "Actuality and Potentiality" at the end that says Aristotle also offers an "even stricter” argument which concludes as:

anything that is capable of being is also capable of not being. What is capable of not being might possibly not be, and what might possibly not be is perishable.

Can anyone assert this is not fallacy?, it's more correct to say:
what might possibly not be is possibly perishable but far from "perishable" as final.

Why? because possibility doesn't deduce as definitely impossible as final, but rather possibly impossible!

What is the difference between:

"Can theory of nothing challenge God?"
and
"Can nothing challenge God?" — James Riley

In my OP it was not clear what I mean by "theory of nothing", but obviously there is a distinction of scientific nothing and philosophical nothing.
It's obvious 1st video is in contradiction with 2nd video because 1st video expands to philosophical nothing where's 2nd video assumes "scientific nothing" for which it's not self-explanatory what it means.
I'm guessing scientific nothing is locked to current scientific discoveries so there is no universal definition.

Therefore philosophical "nothing" definitely can not challenge God, it's up to scientists to define what they mean by "nothing".

Conservation law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law — dclements

Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy.

Therefore is it safe to say that virtual particles (aka. quantum fluctuation) is what exceeds both matter and energy? (but not necessarily the laws of physics, that is laws of quantum physics)

If so then scientific theory of nothing probably assumes absence of matter and energy but not quantum fluctuation.

Therefore philosophical "nothing" definitely can not challenge God, it's up to scientists to define what they mean by "nothing". — SpaceDweller

:100: :up:

In distinguishing between a theory of nothing and nothing itself, I was thinking "Can nothing challenge God" sounded like today's sermon on a reader-board outside of some church along the byways of America. Of course, the upshot of the sermon would be "No! Nothing can challenge God!" They lure in the sheep with a temptation of controversy, only to shut it down. Meanwhile, some little kid in the pews is wondering: "Wait, if God is really God, can't he challenge himself? If not, is God nothing, or not nothing, or both? Did God challenge himself by creating people who aspire to his position? No. Hmmm. Mom, when is this over? I want to go outside and play."

Still can't have 'The Mind' as First and Fundamental even as a Potential that thinks as much as an Actual; complexity can't be just sitting around already complete. — PoeticUniverse

So you say. And that's a true statement . . . in the physical Real World. But, the metaphysical Ideal Realm may not be bound by the physical rules of thermodynamics. Scientists have long been perplexed by the existence of "Natural Laws" in a dynamic world scrambled by fundamental Randomness. For Plato's Forms, actual complexity is not "just sitting around already complete". Instead, a Metaphysical Form is merely the Potential Design for a future thing, that must then be Actualized, sometimes by a prolonged complex process of evolution, into a Physical Thing.

For example, if randomness is just a tool for creating novel opportunities, then maybe that tool is "wielded" so-to-speak by the organizing law of Natural Selection. Together, the random-number-generator and the non-random-fitness-selector form a progressive evolutionary program for optimizing a design. But that program would not exist without a Programmer, who has the mental potential to imagine a future reality, and to make it actual. In the First Cause scenario, the computer -- our complexifying physical universe -- is merely the execution of a simple Genetic Algorithm.

So, maybe you can't make sense of a Primal Mind, but a designing mind is essential to an evolutionary program. The mind doesn't have to do the work though, it merely sets the criteria for Selection (Natural Laws). Then, the Programmer starts the machine to grind-out solutions to the Cosmic Question. Anyway, to me, the notion that our world began as an idea in the Mind of G*D is more poetic than the null hypothesis of an accidental world, existing for no reason. That would be a meaningless irrational coincidence. Moreover, the magical theory of a world-from-nothing makes no sense without a magician. :joke:


Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative deity, who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

Evolutionary Design :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

Genetic algorithm :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm

Coincidence vs Creation :
Laws of Nature’s God
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html

PS__Even in the scientific metaphor of the world as a dumb machine, someone . . . some Mind has to design the mechanism, and to turn it on. Machines don't just appear out of nowhere.

Fair point :up: but far from "click bait"
The true reason why I started this thread is because theory of nothing is relatively new theory that is obviously not well defined, and for which I believed is good one to understand what was there before BB if there ever was anything. — SpaceDweller

Ok, I guess that is almost a good enough reason as any to start a thread but I hope that you understand through some of my posts how certain things like laws of physics (such as the law of conservation, which I was calling process theory, and the laws of thermodynamics) deal with the issues of the theory of nothing before we even knew anything about quantum fluctuations.

There may be a few people that believe that believe that quantum fluctuations somehow create something out of nothing, but from what little I have read of it the majority of scientist that work in this field either A) disagree with their assumptions based on their understanding of the mathematical proofs B) point out that theories on quantum fluctuations are based only mathematical proofs that may not properly explain the process in how quantum fluctuations work. Or in other words the mathematical proof are merely a kind of bookkeeping of the process (which is true of all mathematical formulas) and any weirdness or irregularities resulting of such formulas are mostly likely errors in the formulas themselves than anything being able to violate the law of conservation and/or laws of thermodynamics.

But I wouldn't dismiss anything however uncertain it may be, because in the end if you dismiss everything then what do you have left to work with? I guess "nothing" :meh: — SpaceDweller

Being able to dismiss theories or certain people's assumptions is a good thing and more useful then you might think. The more you can just dismiss (such as anything that is just assumed by someone without any proof) without much effort, the less you really have to think or worry about.

While there is always a chance that some black swan may come around to disrupt that status quo or the paradigm in how the world is viewed, these black swans don't really appear all that often.

Your links and propositions indeed helped me to get better understanding, thanks! — SpaceDweller

Your welcome. :D

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. — Michael

I'm not sure who wrote the wiki page your quoting but here is a link written by a guy with a PhD in theoretical physics who disagrees with your assertion:

Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?
https://www.quora.com/Physics/Does-quantum-vacuum-fluctuation-violate-the-conservation-of-energy/answer/Luke-Pritchett?srid=OKNi&share=1
=======================================================================
Q) Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?

A)No! Saying that quantum mechanics does not conserve energy is misinterpreting quantum mechanics.
I will use the term "Hamiltonian" as I explain what I mean. The Hamiltonian is a mathematical object that appears in both quantum mechanics and classical physics. It takes on slightly different forms in those two regimes, but in both cases it is strictly tied to the total energy of the system being studies. In general the Hamiltonian is a function of the state variables (position and momentum) of all the objects in the system, along with possible time-dependent external terms. For a system of one particle (quantum or classical) it looks like

H=p22m+V(q,t)

where p and q are the particle's momentum and position and V is a possibly time-dependent potential function. Basically what this is saying is that the total energy of the system is the particle's kinetic energy plus its potential energy. [*]

As long as the Hamiltonian does not change form in time ( ∂V∂t=0 ) then energy is conserved.

In classical physics the Hamiltonian is just a number. That is, at any point in time I can only possibly measure one value for the total energy of the system. It is easy to understand conservation in this case. At every point in time I measure the same number for total energy.

In quantum physics the Hamiltonian is not just a number. Instead there are a collection of energy eigenvalues. Any time I measure the energy I can only measure one of these eigenvalues. Each of these eigenvalues has at least one physical arrangement of the system associated with it, called eigenstates. If the system is arranged in an eigenstate then every time I measure the energy I measure the same value --- the associated eigenvalue. This is how conservation of energy works in quantum mechanics. If I know the energy exactly at one point in time then I know the energy exactly at every point in time from then on (as long as I only measure energy).

Let me repeat. If the system is in an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian then every time I measure the energy (without measuring anything else in between) I will find the same value. If I know the energy exactly at one point in time then I know the energy exactly at every point in time. Every formulation of quantum mechanics I know supports this statement.

Now, things are of course more interesting in quantum mechanics than classical physics. There are a few things that can happen in quantum mechanics that look like energy is not being conserved. However, I think you will see that it isn't really right to say that conservation of energy is being broken in these cases.

In quantum mechanics it is possible for a physical state to be in a superposition of two different states. Say there are two eigenstates associated with energies E1 and E2 . The system can be in the first state (in which case we will always measure E1 ) or the second state. It can also be in a combination of the two states, in which case when I measure the energy I might measure E1 or E2 ! If we thought we were in the first state only but then measured E2 we might think energy was not conserved. But really we were just confused about what state the system was in. That's not really breaking conservation of energy.

Another thing that can happen is pretty much the same as the last case, but more cleverly hidden. Particle physics is governed by a quantum Hamiltonian just like we've described. However, it has two terms: H=H0+V . The term H0 is usually called the "bare Hamiltonian." The bare Hamiltonian describes the simple relativistic energy of particles. In quantum electrodynamics a state with one electron with momentum p has exactly the energy we expect: (pc)2+(mc2)2−−−−−−−−−−−−√ . The energy of a state with two electrons is the sum of the relativistic energies of the two electrons. Even better, states with a definite number number of electrons are eigenstates of the bare Hamiltonian. This is kind of how we expect things to work so it seems nice.

But it's not really how it works. Electrons interact with photons and positrons. To describe that interaction we have to add the interaction term V . Doing so changes the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. Without the interaction a state with just one electron is an eigenstate -- it has a definite energy. With the interaction a state with just one electron is no longer an eigenstate! That means we might measure several different energies of the system just by putting in a single electron.

Even weirder, energy eigenstates of the Hamiltonian do not have a definite number of particles! If we prepare two systems with the same definite energy and then measure the number of particles we might find one to have just an electron, and we might find another to have an electron and a photon. This sounds weird because we are used to finding the energy of a collection of particles by adding up their individual energies. That doesn't work in relativistic QM because the potential energy depends on the interaction between particles.

But is energy conservation broken? No. All that's happened is states that we thought would be energy eigenstates are not. We thought we were arranging a state of definite energy, but we were actually arranging a superposition.

This got long and doesn't have any pictures. Sorry. Long story short, if it looks like quantum mechanics isn't conserving energy it's because you're interpreting something in a way that you shouldn't really.

[*] Hamiltonians for relativistic particles don't have this form, but the idea is the same. They still represent the form of the total energy of the system. - Luke Pritchett, PhD in theoretical physics
=======================================================================

Since he and a few other people who also have PhDs in the field disagree with what your are trying to assert, I think it is more probable that you (and the guy who wrote that wiki page) are misinterpreting the process of how quantum mechanics/vacuum fluctuations works and that vacuum fluctuations don't actually break the conservation laws of physics.

Of course, the upshot of the sermon would be "No! Nothing can challenge God!" They lure in the sheep with a temptation of controversy, only to shut it down. Meanwhile, some little kid in the pews is wondering: "Wait, if God is really God, can't he challenge himself? If not, is God nothing, or not nothing, or both? — James Riley

hahah, good joke! :rofl:

Q) Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?
A)No! Saying that quantum mechanics does not conserve energy is misinterpreting quantum mechanics. — dclements

Awesome insight! who would though of misinformation on wiki.

This also explains why there is no clear-cut definition of "scientific" theory of nothing, it's obviously depends on most recent scientific discoveries.

Seems like we touched the ground of both scientific and philosophical.

Coincidence vs Creation :
Laws of Nature’s God
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page51.html — Gnomon

Question from link:

So, was the origin of our world a coincidence or a creation? In any case, the Cosmic Bang was a rare event, not a mere regularity . . . No? [YIN\YANG]

Seems like Yes\No choice question where one needs to choose between God and "no God", or good and evil, or 0 and 1, but that's mathematically incorrect question.

Given all the discoveries and insights we collected, I think it's rather God or infinity (That is God or I don't know):

The nothing alluded to in the videos in the thread refers to the nothing in space. Empty space contains virtual stuff though. This kind of empty space contains virtual,
no real particles at the singularity. They were pulled into reality by inflation, and that's called creation of the universe. What isn't explained though, is were this singularity came from. It's a mystery, even if it's an in-between singularity on an eternal, infinite space. Was it God?

But, the metaphysical Ideal Realm may not be bound by the physical rules of thermodynamics. Scientists have long been perplexed by the existence of "Natural Laws" in a dynamic world scrambled by fundamental Randomness. For Plato's Forms, actual complexity is not "just sitting around already complete". Instead, a Metaphysical Form is merely the Potential Design for a future thing, that must then be Actualized, sometimes by a prolonged complex process of evolution, into a Physical Thing. — Gnomon

One cannot even hope to have an 'explanation' that itself would need all the more explanation, to the nth degree, even, plus as a regress.

Given all the discoveries and insights we collected, I think it's rather God or infinity (That is God or I don't know): — SpaceDweller

That was indeed my choice, many years ago, when I decided that my Back-to-the-Bible religion was no longer believable. However, I had no answer to more general philosophical questions, such as "why are we here?", or "Did something come from nothing". So, for years, I labeled myself an Agnostic (I simply don't know).

But now, after many more years of philosophical investigation, I call myself a Deist. That allows me to say I believe that some kind of God (creative principle) was necessary to account for the existence of our contingent temporary world. But, I still don't know anything directly about the First Cause, except what I can infer from studying the non-random Effects of Creation. That way, I can have my Creator and Science too. :smile:

PS__But, sadly, no hope for salvation from an imperfect creation. So, I just make the best of a sometimes difficult situation.

One cannot even hope to have an 'explanation' that itself would need all the more explanation, to the nth degree, even, plus as a regress. — PoeticUniverse

That may be true of empirical Science. But not of theoretical Philosophy. Yet, the best they could come up with is a mysterious hypothetical First Cause that at least terminates the regression of Evolution at a Question Mark (Singularity ; God ; Logos, ?) instead of a never-ending tower-of-turtles ellipsis (multiverse ; many worlds) . . . . .

Philosophers have been "explaining" the same general questions to each generation for eons. Ironically, even empirical scientists get mired in eternal regress whenever they try to explain general questions, such as a Theory of Everything. :joke:

TOE or GOD ? :
A theory of everything (TOE or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, theory of the world or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe. Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

First Cause vs Infinite Regress :
A cosmological argument, in natural theology, is an argument which claims that the existence of God can be inferred from facts concerning causation, explanation, change, motion, contingency, dependency, or finitude with respect to the universe or some totality of objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

A Deistic profession of Faith :
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
https://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

That may be true of empirical Science. But not of theoretical Philosophy. Yet, the best they could come up with is a mysterious hypothetical First Cause that at least terminates the regression of Evolution at a Question Mark (Singularity ; God ; Logos, ?) instead of a never-ending tower-of-turtles ellipsis (multiverse ; many worlds) . . . . . — Gnomon

The 'theoretical' Philosophy has no theory in concluding "deemed to be God" because 'deeming' doesn't make 'God'. They may further think they can eliminate their turtle regress of higher always leading to lower by taking the higher answer all the way to infinite or to the mostest Mind, this leaving no room for another Higher Mind to account for the Perfect Mind that has to thus remain unaccounted for as The First Uncaused Cause. Sagan and Okkam would say to skip this ultimate mystery level that dwarfs evolution's now infinitesimal level in terms of having to be explained. Begging the question, as ever, doesn't answer but just makes for a larger question, in this case it becoming the largest question.

But, sadly, no hope for salvation from an imperfect creation. — Gnomon

It fails. Our universe is not perfect, nor it is completely mathematically elegant, for there are superfluous entities in it, along with a lot of waste. Protons and neutrons require only up and down quarks, and not the other four quarks.

But, sadly, no hope for salvation from an imperfect creation. — Gnomon

We don't know anything about creation and how perfect or imperfect it was, except as it looks now.
Are the laws of physics perfect?
Quantum fluctuation is uncertain but we don't know whether that's perfect or not.
Seemingly chaotic universe is governed by the laws of physics, but universe is not subject of itself nor governed by itself therefore why it would be perfect or what's perfect at all?

Therefore using same logic, Spinoza's view that God = nature and nature = God is imperfect as well.

The 'theoretical' Philosophy has no theory in concluding "deemed to be God" because 'deeming' doesn't make 'God'. — PoeticUniverse

As a philosophical hypothesis, I would use the term "inferred". In my Enformationism thesis I provide the factual basis and the reasoning. "To Deem" is to have an opinion. But "to infer" is to have good reasons. Of course, all inferences, scientific or philosophical, are uncertain. To "infer" a Big Bang from astronomical evidence doesn't "make" a universe from nothing. But, so far, nobody has come up with a better solution to the perennial philosophical "why" questions. So, G*D is my "theory", and I'm sticking to it. :joke:

To Infer : deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements

Theory : an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.

What is the main purpose of philosophy? :
Philosophy overall aims to question assumptions we make about our lives and really dig in to the details of why we think what we think and how we choose to act. It can get complicated at times, but it can also help a person to see more clearly that there are other ways of looking at the world than is our habit.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/philosophy-definition-purpose.html

Therefore using same logic, Spinoza's view that God = nature and nature = God is imperfect as well. — SpaceDweller

Is anything in this world perfect? My religious up-bringing repeatedly pointed to the imperfection of humans, and human logic. But then, it pointed to a leather-bound book, and declared that it was "perfect" as a revelation from God.

Yet, after the age of reason I concluded, via my imperfect logic, that the man-made book was so obviously imperfect, that I couldn't believe a word it said. Since the only thing Perfect is ALL (1) or NOTHING (0) only death will make my life perfect. In the meantime, I simply deal with uncertainty, and make-do with good-enough for pragmatic purposes. :smile:

PS___I accept that Nature is G*D, in the sense that the First Cause created the world out of H/er own substance : Information (the creative power to enform). So, the space-time creation is imperfect and evolving; but the Enfernal (eternal-- infinite) Creator must be perfect, in the sense of Whole, Complete, ALL.


PanEnDeism :
Panendeism (all in god) is an ontological position that explores the interrelationship between God (The Cosmic Mind) and the known attributes of the universe. Combining aspects of Panentheism and Deism, Panendeism proposes an idea of God that both embodies the universe and is transcendent of its observable physical properties.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page16.html

It fails. Our universe is not perfect, nor it is completely mathematically elegant, for there are superfluous entities in it, along with a lot of waste. — PoeticUniverse

My worldview acknowledges the imperfections of our beloved world, and offers a rationale for a less-than-ideal creation of a World Creator : it ain't perfect until it's over. Nothing that changes will ever be perfect (whole, complete), until it ceases to change. Perfection has no room for evolution. So, our role is merely to evolve, until we can't go no mo'.

Only ALL (1) or NOTHING (0) or Full-Circle are complete and perfect. Since we are somewhere in the middle of those extremes, we can only assume that the world is still evolving from Alpha toward Omega. Hence, imperfect creatures cannot expect a perfect creation. However, it's good-enough for my moderate needs and expectations. So, I'm content (dare I say "happy"?) with Aristotelian Moderation in all things. That's a philosophical/Stoic attitude toward a less than perfect world. Are you a frustrated perfectionist? :cool:

PS___are you disappointed in your imperfect world?

How to beat Perfectionism :
Perfectionism rarely begets perfection—only disappointment.
The Stoics understood how pointless—and dangerous to our mental health and progress in life—those thoughts were.
https://dailystoic.com/perfectionism/