Elementary 'particles' are directly quantum field quanta; there is no further structure. These field lumps of field excitations are conveniently called 'elementary particles', but they are not pinpoints and are spread out; an electron has a volume. — PoeticUniverse

If the particles are spread out in space then they obviously have a spatial structure.

Because they don't exist in the here and now? — Agent Smith

Yes, it would be a contradiction for unicorns to exist here and now because they don't exist here and now. If there is an object such as a spacetime whose definition includes that there is no unicorn at a location X inside it, it would be a contradiction if a unicorn was at the location X in such a spacetime. A spacetime with a unicorn at the location X would be a different spacetime, another spacetime.

If the particles are spread out in space then they obviously have a spatial structure. — litewave

Yes, which are the directly structure of the quantum field. That elementary particles go through two slits shows that they are field quanta, that is that they have a wave nature, which is also. in short, why there are stable rungs of quanta. We are getting close to the One, for a wave is continuous, having no parts. An electron given energy make quantum jumps in an atom, for its wave cannot just be cut at any old place but must become a multiple for it to remain intact.

I can see why some may still see quantum fields as a system, since there are 25 of them; however, the quantum vacuum that isn't a vacuum contains them all.

Hi. When you hear physicists talk about something coming from nothing, the nothing they're talking about still contains the laws of quantum physics, quantum fields, abstract concepts like the laws of logic or mathematical constructs. This isn't the absolute "nothing" of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?".

My view is that I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something".   Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.  That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to the idea that "something" has always been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something".

    How can "nothing" be a "something"?  I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole.  This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually.  This applies to even inside-the-mind groupings, like the concept of a car (also, fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes, etc.). For these, though, the grouping may be better thought of as the top-level label the mind gives to the mental construct that groups together other constructs into a new unit whole (i.e., the mental construct labeled “car” groups together the constructs of engine, car chassis, tires, use for transportation, etc.). 

Next, when you get rid of all matter, energy, space/volume, time, abstract concepts, laws or constructs of physics/math/logic, possible worlds/possibilities, properties, consciousness, and finally minds, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this supposed lack of all, we think that this is the lack of all existent entities, or "absolute nothing" But, once everything is gone and the mind is gone, this situation, this "absolute nothing", would, by its very nature, define the situation completely. This "nothing" would be it; it would be the all. It would be the entirety, or whole amount, of all that is present. Is there anything else besides that "absolute nothing"? No. It is "nothing", and it is the all. An entirety/defined completely/whole amount/"the all" is a grouping, which means that the situation we previously considered to be "absolute nothing" is itself an existent entity. It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. One might object and say that being a grouping is a property so how can it be there in "nothing"? The answer is that the property of being a grouping (e.g., the all grouping) only appears after all else, including all properties and the mind of the person trying to imagine this, is gone. In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.

Some other points are:

1. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. Instead, I suggest that the two different words, “nothing” and “something”, describe the same situation (e.g., "the lack of all"), and that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".

2. It's very important to distinguish between the mind's conception of "nothing" and "nothing" itself, in which no minds would be there. These are two different things. Logically, this is indisputable. In visualizing "nothing" one has to try to imagine what it's like when no minds are there.  Of course, this is impossible, but we can try to extrapolate.

If anyone's interested, more details are at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/

1. The words "was" (i.e., "was nothing") and "then"/"now" (i.e., "then something") in the first paragraph imply a temporal change, but time would not exist until there was "something", so I don't use these words in a time sense. — Roger

Good one! I would stick with that.

Thanks!

↪chiknsld Hi. When you hear physicists talk about something coming from nothing, the nothing they're talking about still contains the laws of quantum physics, quantum fields, abstract concepts like the laws of logic or mathematical constructs. This isn't the absolute "nothing" of the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?". — Roger

Yes, indeed. Hi Roger!

My view is that I think that to ever get a satisfying answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", we're going to have to address the possibility that there could have been "nothing", but now there is "something".   Another way to say this is that if you start with a 0 (e.g., "nothing") and end up with a 1 (e.g., "something"), you can't do this unless somehow the 0 isn't really a 0 but is actually a 1 in disguise, even though it looks like 0 on the surface.  That is, in one way of thinking "nothing" just looks like "nothing".  But, if we think about "nothing" in a different way, we can see through its disguise and see that it's a "something". This then gets back around to the idea that "something" has always been here except now there's a reason why: because even what we think of as "nothing" is a "something". — Roger

Correct! Nothing is not something! :snicker:

How can "nothing" be a "something"?  I think it's first important to try and figure out why any “normal” thing (like a book, or a set) can exist and be a “something”. I propose that a thing exists if it is a grouping. A grouping ties stuff together into a unit whole and, in so doing, defines what is contained within that new unit whole.  This grouping together of what is contained within provides a surface, or boundary, that defines what is contained within, that we can see and touch as the surface of the thing and that gives "substance" and existence to the thing as a new unit whole that's a different existent entity than any components contained within considered individually.  This applies to even inside-the-mind groupings, like the concept of a car (also, fictional characters like Sherlock Holmes, etc.). For these, though, the grouping may be better thought of as the top-level label the mind gives to the mental construct that groups together other constructs into a new unit whole (i.e., the mental construct labeled “car” groups together the constructs of engine, car chassis, tires, use for transportation, etc.). — Roger

Hmmm, that's interesting. A grouping of existence. :)

It's only once all things, including all minds, are gone does “nothing” become "the all" and a new unit whole that we can then, after the fact, see from the outside as a whole unit. — Roger

What grouping? I think you skipped that part, hehe. Nothing is not a grouping of anything. Existence was the grouping remember?

In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear. — Roger

Ah, that's logic. :) Clever trick but logic cannot exist if there is nothing.

Hmmm, that's interesting. A grouping of existence.

Not a grouping of existence, but I think a grouping is what causes something to exist. For instance, a grouping together of paper, ink and binding atoms creates a new unit whole called a book that's a separate existent entity than these atoms considered individually. A set exists because it's a grouping together of elements. The set is a different existent entity than the elements considered individually. This idea of a grouping being related to being, or existence, isn't new. Many refer to it as a unity or a bundle. For instance, Leibniz thought that "unity is the hallmark of a genuine substance" (SEP).

What grouping? I think you skipped that part, hehe. Nothing is not a grouping of anything.
Existence was the grouping remember?

To me, when you get rid of all things, including the mind of the person trying to imagine this, this nothing would completely define the situation or be the all. A completely defined situation, or the all, are groupings just like a set exists if the elements in it are completely defined or all there. It's important to try and visualize what "nothing" would be like when the mind is not there. Of course, this is impossible, but I think that's the key step. In the existent mind, nothing just looks like nothing.

In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear.
— Roger

Ah, that's logic. :) Clever trick but logic cannot exist if there is nothing.

This isn't logic. It's the nature of the situation. Only later, do human minds invent logic to describe this situation.

In other words, the very lack of all existent entities is itself what allows this new property of being the all grouping to appear. — Roger

You're saying that the first existential grouping is self-created?

these objects are not a part of a spacetime. They may exist in a space without time — litewave

How is there space without time?

You're saying that the first existential grouping is self-created?

Yep, that's what I think. Without having some thing that exists because of whatever's inherent to that thing, I think there will be an infinite regress of explaining one thing in terms of another. So, if "nothing" can, when thought of differently, be seen as an existent entity, this entity would be the beginning point of defining things in terms of other things.

You're saying that the first existential grouping is self-created?

Yep, that's what I think. Without having some thing that exists because of whatever's inherent to that thing, I think there will be an infinite regress of explaining one thing in terms of another. So, if "nothing" can, when thought of differently, be seen as an existent entity, this entity would be the beginning point of defining things in terms of other things. — Roger

Yes, I would agree that something is either self-created or that it was always here (infinite regression). :)

Do you think that this means existence is evolution itself?

Yes, I would agree that something is either self-created or that it was always here (infinite regression). :)

Agreed! On this, we are in unity! :smile: It's a possibility that something has always been here, but to me, that seems unsatisfying since I still don't know what that thing is and why it's always been here. So, while possible, I'm going to ignore it. But, if time itself begins with a thing that's self-created, it also seems possible to say that thing has always been here?

But, if time itself begins with a thing that's self-created, it also seems possible to say that thing has always been here? — Roger

Correct! :)

Yes, it would be a contradiction for unicorns to exist here and now because they don't exist here and now. If there is an object such as a spacetime whose definition includes that there is no unicorn at a location X inside it, it would be a contradiction if a unicorn was at the location X in such a spacetime. A spacetime with a unicorn at the location X would be a different spacetime, another spacetime — litewave

:up:

How is there space without time? — chiknsld

Beats me! Durability, a notion we're familiar with from advertisements on kitchenware.

How is there space without time? — chiknsld

As I said, a space is a special kind of collection that has a continuity between its parts. There is a rigorous definition of it in mathematics. A space also has dimensions, which is the number of coordinates necessary to specify a location inside the collection. According to theory of relativity, spacetime is a 4-dimensional space where one of the dimensions, which we call time, has somewhat different mathematical properties than the other three. So in mathematics there is no problem in defining a space, with an arbitrary number of dimensions, without time.

Spacetime itself, with everything inside it, just exists, timelessly, eternally. — litewave

Interesting. :)

As I said, a space is a special kind of collection that has a continuity between its parts. There is a rigorous definition of it in mathematics. A space also has dimensions, which is the number of coordinates necessary to specify a location inside the collection. According to theory of relativity, spacetime is a 4-dimensional space where one of the dimensions, which we call time, has somewhat different mathematical properties than the other three. So in mathematics there is no problem in defining a space, with an arbitrary number of dimensions, without time — litewave

Ah, a mathematics that represents the real world (dimensions). So maybe in a computer that would help to model a 3-d virtual world, but I suppose those mathematics would be highly lacking in modeling anything close to reality? But I could just be very naïve to how far mathematics has come along.

these objects are not a part of a spacetime. They may exist in a space without time — litewave

Are you saying that mathematics exists? I will grant you that physical objects have properties that can be predicted by mathematics, but that's a far cry from saying that mathematics actually exists, right?

How do you make such a large leap, that you notice physical objects have mathematical properties, so then you say that mathematics exists? Are you saying that a complex system of description (mathematics) implies that descriptors exist? Does logic also exist, etc.?

When you hear physicists talk about something coming from nothing, the nothing they're talking about still contains the laws of quantum physics, quantum fields, abstract concepts like the laws of logic or mathematical constructs. — Roger

What’s continuous means a field that waves,
Naught else; ‘Stillness’ is impossible.
A field has a changing value everywhere,
Since the ‘vacuum’ e’er has to fluctuate.

The fields overlap and some interact;
So, there is one overall field as All,
As the basis of all that is possible—
Of energy’s base motion default.

From the field points ever fluctuating,
Quantum field waverings have to result
From points e’er dragging on one another.
Points are bits that may form letter strokes.

As sums of harmonic oscillators,
Fields can only form their elementaries
At stable quanta energy levels;
Other excitation levels are virtuals.

Since the quantum fields are everywhere,
The elementaries, like ‘kinks’, can move
To anyplace in the realms of the fields.
As in a rope, only the quanta move.

At each level of organization
Of temporaries in the universe,
New capabilities become available,
And so they take on a life of their own
In addition to what gives rise to them.

The great needle plays, stitches, winds, and paves
As the strands of quantum fields’ webs of waves
That weave the warp, weft, and woof, uni-versed,
Into being’s fabric of Earth’s living braids.

Quantum fields are the fundamental strokes
Whose excitations at harmonics cloaks
The field quanta with stability
To persist and obtain mobility.

As letters of the Cosmic alphabet,
The elementary particles beget,
Combining in words to write the story
Of the stars, atoms, cells, and life’s glory.

Are you saying that mathematics exists? I will grant you that physical objects have properties that can be predicted by mathematics, but that's a far cry from saying that mathematics actually exists, right? — chiknsld

Are there collections in reality? If so, then reality is mathematical because all mathematics can be expressed in collections. That's what pure set theory has shown.

Does logic also exist, etc.? — chiknsld

Logic is just the principle of consistency. It just means that an object is what it is and is not what it is not. Logic is a necessary fact. And so are collections, because if there are some objects there is necessarily also a collection of them.

That's great! If quantum fields are "the basis of all that is possible" and "the fundamental strokes", who am I to argue with great literature?! I withdraw my previous criticism of physicists' nothing! :smile:
If you wrote that, nice writing!

Are there collections in reality? If so, then reality is mathematical because all mathematics can be expressed in collections. That's what pure set theory has shown. — litewave

Logic is just the principle of consistency. It just means that an object is what it is and is not what it is not. Logic is a necessary fact. And so are collections, because if there are some objects there is necessarily also a collection of them. — litewave

I think you have done well in defending your position! :)

So how do we bridge the gap between mathematics and matter/energy? Are you saying that matter always existed and that it's impossible to know how mathematics gave birth to physical creation?

Will your answer be convenient? Or must there be mystery in life? Or is there a third option where we can figure out the complexities? I remember that you mentioned planck scale litewave, it sounds to me like you believe in "mystery".

If given only three options: convenience, complexity, or mystery, which would you choose?

That's great! If quantum fields are "the basis of all that is possible" and "the fundamental strokes", who am I to argue with great literature?! I withdraw my previous criticism of physicists' nothing! :smile:
If you wrote that, nice writing! — Roger

You are adaptable, a good sign.

Everything is now physically known about our everyday lives:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07884.pdf

Everything is now physically known about our everyday lives:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07884.pdf

I'm not a big fan of Sean Carroll's because his final answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that it's a brute fact. I'm still going with my original nothing idea.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07884.pdf — PoeticUniverse

From link from the Physicists.

The argument relies on an assumption that the world is entirely physical...

Ah, looks like has some competition from the Physicists.

Everything is physical.

...physicalism, EFT, Core Theory...has a number of immediate implications. There is no life after death, as the information in a person’s mind is encoded in the physical configuration of atoms in their body, and there is no physical mechanism for that information to be carried away after death.

Wow, consciousness is physical.

The location of planets and stars on the day of your birth has no effect on who you become later in life, as there are no relevant forces that can extend over astrophysical distances.

Oh goodness, astrology too.

The problems of consciousness, whether “easy” or “hard,” must ultimately be answered in terms of processes that are compatible with this underlying theory...Everything we have said presumes from the start that the world is ultimately physical, consisting of some kind of physical stuff obeying physical laws.

Wow, consciousness is physical.

This research is funded in part by the Walter Burke Institute for Theoretical Physics at Caltech, by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics, under Award Number DE-SC0011632, and by the Foundational Questions Institute.

.

So how do we bridge the gap between mathematics and matter/energy? — chiknsld

Mass/energy is the property of having causal relations to other objects, and causal relations are a special case of mathematical relations in spacetime where consequences logically follow from causes at a later point in the direction of time.

Are you saying that matter always existed and that it's impossible to know how mathematics gave birth to physical creation? — chiknsld

All possible collections exist timelessly by necessity, in virtue of being logically consistent. Times are just a special case of collections, among countless other possible collections.

If given only three options: convenience, complexity, or mystery, which would you choose? — chiknsld

Since reality consists of all possible objects, it is as complex as possible, maybe infinitely complex. We can say that in principle all the possible objects are collections, from the simplest, empty collections (non-composite objects) to maybe infinitely large collections. But it is another thing to understand all the collections, all their complex relations and all the possible worlds they constitute. According to Godel's incompleteness theorems a complex system such as one defined by pure set theory has uncountably many axioms (infinity of a higher degree than that of the set of natural numbers) and so cannot be logically proved to be consistent. And that means that it cannot be proved that the system exists. It seems to us so far that the system is consistent but we cannot be sure. We can only prove the consistency (and thus existence) of smaller, finite systems.

In addition to using pure reason, we can learn about reality by interacting with it (sensory perception). In fact, even if we knew all the possible collections by pure reason we would still not know in which of the collections we live, so we would need to look around ourselves to find that out. Our ability to interact with reality is of course limited. It seems that due to laws of quantum mechanics and gravity it is not possible to interact with distances smaller than Planck length and Planck time. We also cannot interact with parts of our universe that recede from us faster than light due to expansion of the universe and we cannot interact with other universes or collections that are not causally connected to us. Another problem is that we can only consciously experience that which is in our mind, so not directly the outside world but just its representations in our mind based on perceptual inputs.

I'm not a big fan of Sean Carroll's because his final answer to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is that it's a brute fact. — Roger

What would make it such that The Existent has no alternative? There can't be a sequence in time from 'Nothing' that has no time nor has anything.

What would make it such that The Existent has no alternative? There can't be a sequence in time from 'Nothing' that has no time nor has anything.

I already said my view, which you had previously quoted, that the seeming temporal change from "nothing" to "something" is like an artifact imposed by our minds. That is, "that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now".

Mass/energy is the property of having causal relations to other objects, and causal relations are a special case of mathematical relations in spacetime where consequences logically follow from causes at a later point in the direction of time. — litewave

Good job!

All possible collections exist timelessly by necessity — litewave

Nice. :)

Another problem is that we can only consciously experience that which is in our mind, so not directly the outside world but just its representations in our mind based on perceptual inputs. — litewave

Indeed. Odd that you did not choose "mystery". Btw, did you have any interest in that paper? :lol:

I already said my view, which you had previously quoted, that the seeming temporal change from "nothing" to "something" is like an artifact imposed by our minds. That is, "that the human mind can view the switching between the two different words, or ways of visualizing "the lack of all", as a temporal change from "was" to "now". — Roger

So, the mind makes a false artifact, thinking that a lack of anything can have being. This leaves The Existent to have no opposite and no alternative. Parmenides said that 'Nothing' cannot even be meant.

The weave of the quantum fields as strokes writes
The letters of the elemental bytes—
The alphabet of the standard model,
Atoms then forming the stars’ words whose mights

Merge to form molecules, as the phrases,
On to proteins/cells, as verse sentences,
In to organisms ‘stanza paragraphs,
And to the poem stories of the species.

Of this concordance of literature,
We’re the Cosmos’ poetic adventure,
Sentient poems being unified-verses,
As both the contained and the container.

We are both essence and form, as poems versed,
Ever unveiling this life’s deeper thirsts,
As new riches, through strokes, letters, phonemes,
Words, phrases, and sentences—uni versed.

We have rhythm, reason, rhyme, meter, sense,
Metric, melody, and beauty’s true pense,
Revealed through life’s participation,
From the latent whence into us hence.

Oh, those imaginings of what can’t be!
Such as Nought, Stillness, and Block’s decree,
As well as Apart, Beginning, and End,
Responsibility, Free Will, and Theity.