The argument (the title of the OP) rests on the presupposition that time had no beginning.

Hence,

If time existed in nothingness, and there was a possibility of the big bang, then it becomes necessarily so that something came out from nothing.

The argument (the title of the OP) rests on the presupposition that time had no beginning. — Shawn

But couldn’t it be the case that something existed timelessly prior to the beginning of what we perceive as time?

If time existed in nothingness, and there was a possibility of the big bang, then it becomes necessarily so that something came out from nothing. — Shawn

Not sure if I’m following this. There would be no time in nothingness, at least in how I conceive of it. Time is something. Also, wouldn’t the possibility of the big bang itself be something?

The reason I think this is because it seems that an absolute, philosophical ‘nothing’ would make ‘something’ impossible. — Paul Michael

Since there is something, a lack of anything is out, plus there is no sequence in time form nonbeing to being because 'Nothing' has no time, nor anything else, nor can 'Nothing' have any properties, nor can 'it' be.

So, given that Something has no alternative, it is everywhere and continuous because it cannot have any spacers of 'Nothing' in it. Because it is continuous and never created, it is partless and is thus the simplest state, for a composite cannot be fundamental. As having no parts the Something is unbreakable into parts as well as being unmakeable from parts, thus it cannot be generated or go away; so it is eternal, as being ever, and there isn't anything else but it.

The Something cannot be still, else naught would happen; so, we can assign movement to it as a truth, thus it is energetic.

Forms from it cannot be new and different from the Something, thus forms such as elementary particles can only become through rearrangements of the Something. Since the elementaries are rather persistent, there is a way that these lumps of Something can be made to be stable. We see that they occur at certain rungs of energy levels and not others, which we call quanta, so again, there is something that allows for these steady formations.

Since electrons or photons sent even one at a time through two slits makes an interference pattern, they must have a spread out wave nature, indicating also that they are not pinpoints. While we refer to them as elementary particles, they, of course, are secondary, and so they are elementary only as ‘particles'.

Look up QFT (Quantum Field Theory)!

Inconceivable!! Truly a dizzying intellect. Lol.

Inconceivable!! — TiredThinker

To continue the philosophy, we can now refer to the Something as the Permanent. What it forms are mostly temporaries, the entire universe, even, although photons don’t decay by themselves and ought to be all that’s sparsely left at the End as forms.

Being of necessity, having no alternative, the Permanent requires no creation by ‘God’. Just as we see in the universe, the progression up to now went from the simple to the composite to the more and more complex.

The Permanent ‘lesser’ simplest makes for the ‘greater’ in terms of complexity, yet the ‘lesser’ always wins because it ever remains, for the ‘greater’ complexities don’t last. Even the elementaries can get annihilated.

The religious template of the lesser always having to come from the greater was always doomed, lest an infinite regress ensues, for one, and this is not seen, for two, and the Permanent is of necessity, for three. The notion of ‘God’ fails.

‘nothing’ is impossible — Paul Michael

nothingness, death, darkness, emptiness, unconsciousness, are all intrinsically and absolutely impossible. they have never existed, they do not exist now, and they never will exist. in any amount

they are just empty words in the ignorant and unenlightened mind

I've never understood this idea personally. We see, "things" and we assume there is space between them. There is space between atoms, between quarks, between everything. Something exists within the space of nothingness always seemed more reasonable to me, then the idea that something could cease to be.

So how is your conclusion of whether there could be nothing, or whether there must always be something, is more of an emotional argument than one of proof. Do you have a motivation for wanting something to always be, or is it just something you feel is right?

Necessity is dealt with in modal logic, the usual version fo which makes use of possible worlds. On that account you might be taken to be asking "is there a possible world with nothing in it", and there seems no reason to suppose not.

"Something" is also troublesome, having at least two interpretations
1. Being the subject fo a predicate: "Something is green". This is dealt with in predicate calculus. There seems to be no contradiction in saying "nothing is green".
2. Being an individual: Paul Michael exists. This places Paul Michael as part of the domain of the logic, all ready to be spoken about. In that regard it is a presumption rather than a deduction.

The difficulties that ensue here derive from parsing the question into logical form - that is, from working out what the question means. As it stands, the question remains unclear. Hence the fluffy answers hereabouts.

I’ve been going over this in my head for awhile now and I came to the conclusion that there has to be something necessarily. — Paul Michael

One way to look at this: you’ve rediscovered the cogito. The ‘necessity’ comes from asking the question at all — if there were nothing, there would be no question.

So if the question is "Does something exist?" then the answer is "yes; at least one question".

Your logic is on the right lines, imo. In phenomenological application, "Nothing" is only used to refer to the irrelevancy of an experience with respect to some objective, as opposed to referring to absolute absence of experience. Therefore, with some grammatical distortion one could say "experience is logically necessary" , by virtue of "experiential nothingness" referring to ... nothing.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR):
1. If something exists, there's a reason why it exists. (Watch this corner)
2. If something is true, there's a reason why it's true.
3. If something happens, there's a reason why it happens.

There's something. There's a reason why so i.e. something was/is necessary. Ergo, nothing is impossible. I "proved" the wrong statement but something is better than nothing, right?

Also, why do we suppose there's no nothing in our universe? What about space? Perhaps nothing and something go hand in hand (Democritus believed the void is a necessary component of reality). The question "why is there something rather than nothing?" becomes meaningless then, no? There are both!

This exercise is merely another edition of the first antinomy of pure reason, the inverse of which is just as logically sound, in which is found we shouldn’t even be here to consider how us not being here would be impossible.

Might be fun to think about, but there’s no profit in it.

Not sure if I’m following this. There would be no time in nothingness, at least in how I conceive of it. Time is something. Also, wouldn’t the possibility of the big bang itself be something? — Paul Michael

Time is not something. Time is not tangible. Time like math is an abstract. It is an invention of our minds and applied to what exists.

According to the explanation of the cosmos I heard last night, nothing existed before the big bang and then gases were the first to exist, and existence, as we know it today, took a very long time to evolve out of nothing, starting with hydrogen and helium.

To say existence is necessary rules out any further explanation—if something can’t not exist then that just is the explanation for its existence. Once explanation runs out in this way you can just as well posit brute contingency: existence might not have been but it just is and there’s no explanation.

took a very long time to evolve out of nothing — Athena

'Nothing' lacks time, so there's no "very long time".

At the moment of the big bang there was something. From that moment to the present a lot has changed. A measure of change involves a concept of time. When we look at the universe we see the past, because what we see is no longer as it was but only the traveling light of what was.

At the moment of the big bang there was something. — Athena

I was thinking about the "from nothing" part. Since there is no time passing in the lack of anything called 'Nothing', it's not like there was 'Nothing' and then there was something; so, I'd claim that the something that is always there is what banged. Besides, 'Nothing' cannot have being and so there is no alternative to something being.

That cosmic and biological evolution took long also indicates a purely natural and physical process continuing, and so I think that universes can ever happen from the whatever something that is ever a what.

I was thinking about the "from nothing" part. Since there is no time passing in the lack of anything called 'Nothing', it's not like there was 'Nothing' and then there was something; so, I'd claim that the something that is always there is what banged. — PoeticUniverse

It could be that a new bang awaits behind us. If the universe expands because it does so on a 4d space. When the present universe has accelerated into infinity, a new 3d bang can bang at the 4d singularity behind us.

Try reformulating the question: e.g. How can there not be only-not-something? :chin:
Assuming a possible world (i.e. something) is a phase space (a field – not a "container" with or without contents), is there a 'possible world that is not a possible world'? If no, then there is a possible world. There is no 'possible world that is not a possible world', therefore there is a possible world (i.e. something).

it seems that an absolute, philosophical ‘nothing’ would make ‘something’ impossible. — Paul Michael

Why?

'Nothing-ness' entails even the absence of the possibility of not-nothingness (i.e. something). Thus: If ever nothingness, then never not-nothingness; something, therefore necessarily not-nothingness, no?

(NB: Mere 'nothing' is a hole in, or discontinuity of, something; or minimally structured / energetic phase-state of something.)

But how do you know that this is required of "nothingness"? If nothingness is something (or nothing, I guess) that we (by definition?) cannot encounter, then how can we justified in making propositions about any of its traits? In other words, how can we be certain that the entire concept of the dichotomy between nothingness and somethingness isn't merely a product of the methods by which we must conceptualize the world. Maybe, outside of the whole apparatus of our categorizing capacities, there is, in fact, an instance of nothingness somewhere. Or rather, there is not. Which would mean that there was.

"Nothing-ness" is a categorical concept – an exceptionless rule. "Nothing" (i.e. space) is, on the other hand, a hypothetical (physical) description. The distinction, while semantic, disambiguates them in our discourse. Check out the link in my previous post. Absent that ontological/physical distinction, or one like it, we're left with nothing but the muddle of your post. "How do I know ... ?" is a non sequitur, SatmB, since we're only speculating here – not asserting truth-claims – and trying to infer definite implications from these speculations.

I was considering:

it seems that an absolute, philosophical ‘nothing’ would make ‘something’ impossible. — Paul Michael

As basically a truth claim. It's tentative, sure, and I respect if you did not mean it as a powerful assertion or conclusion in an argument. I did just want to investigate it.

To the same point,

Nothing-ness" is a categorical concept – an exceptionless rule. "Nothing" (i.e. space) is, on the other hand, a hypothetical (physical) description. The distinction, while semantic, disambiguates them in our discourse — 180 Proof

I see more truth claims here. Again, maybe they are only in service of broader speculation, but I will still endeavor to pick them apart, (because I think its fun).

How do we know that abstract categorical concepts such as "Nothing-ness" have any applicable use in the current investigation. What is the underlying epistemological claim according to which your distinctions are made?

I do not see how it is possible (or even, why it is really useful) to make such abstract postulations, about big concepts like nothingness and somethingness, (unless its just for fun) when there are many more pressing and emotionally enriching questions to be asking. I guess, even if there is a strong epistemological basis to your propositions, how does knowing that somethingness is necessary improve our understanding or intellectual position from before?

In short, "Why is there something rather than nothing" is, to my understanding, a far, far less interesting question than "given that (it at least really looks like) there is something, what should we do next?".

How do we know that abstract categorical concepts such as "Nothing-ness" have any applicable use in the current investigation. — SatmBopd

I'm using it. Others are and have used it in this manner. What grounds do you have to doubt this practice? Apparently none. :roll:

Ok you're right lol. But the more interesting part of my critique are the last two paragraphs. I am sincerely curious about that.

... how does knowing that somethingness is necessary improve our understanding or intellectual position from before? — SatmBopd

Well, for starters (my two nickels), this reasoning eliminates idle, pseudo-questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which obscure far more than they clarify our discourses.

... "given that (it at least really looks like) there is something, what should we do next?".

All we can do, IME, is strive creatively to ask better, more probative, questions.

Since electrons or photons sent even one at a time through two slits makes an interference pattern, they must have a spread out wave nature, indicating also that they are not pinpoints. While we refer to them as elementary particles, they, of course, are secondary, and so they are elementary only as ‘particles' — PoeticUniverse

I agree there are no pinpoints in nature. The calculations in QFT considers particles as point-like though. Who says the particles are not actually changing all paths continuously, giving the impression of a wavy spreading only. Which means they are not moving on a spectrum of paths in parallel and simultaneously but on one at a time.

Well, for starters (my two nickels), this reasoning eliminates idle, pseudo-questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which obscure far more than they clarify our discourses — 180 Proof

Why is this a pseudo question?

Why is there something rather than (only) nothing? :eyes:

Why is this a pseudo question? — Raymond

The only 'answer' to an ultimate (categorical) Why-question which doesn't beg its own question (i.e. precipitates an infinite regress) is There is no ultimate (categorical) Why. Otherwise, more broadly, pseudo-questions are those which are context-free (i.e. what counts as 'a relevant and sufficient answer' is not specified) can only be begged, not answered.