In my opinion either you define the 'nothing' as a pre-existing state to the universe which means its something existent (leading to guestion of why do you define it to be nothing rather than something), or you define it as non-existent which equals that the existence of the universe is non-causal.

Does the science have any reason to assume either of these options? I haven't heard of any. They both seem to imply this form of existence (the concept of the universe) to be the so called purpose, or peak of the existence, rather than just another layer in the existence which as a whole might be something greater than the human brain could ever understand.

How far do you have to stretch the guestion of the existence versus non-existence to make the existence in itself look rational? Or is it just that the non-existence cannot exist because if it would, it would be existent? Or is our thought of whats rational just plain wrong? And why ever would the existence take the form of physical universe where i am conscious and writing this comment right now? If they aim to a theory of everything the problem of the physical universe itself seems to be their smallest issue.

I have some questions about something and nothing:
1. Is it possible to get something from absolute nothing?
2. Is there difference between "nothing" in philosophy and "nothing" in physics?
3. I saw theory about universe from "nothing" but was it really absolute nothing? Is that possible? — wax1232

Question 1 - It is my understanding that physicists have concluded that matter and energy can be created from nothing.

Question 2 - Is there a meaning of "nothing" in physics? Isn't it just no matter, no energy? Philosophers make it much more complicated.

Question 3 - Isn't that just a rephrasing of Question 1?

How about some help from someone who knows what the hell their talking about.

"no matter, no energy" no space, no time, no laws of physics, no nothing. Yet it is still something if you define it existent.

Question 1 - It is my understanding that physicists have concluded that matter and energy can be created from nothing. — T Clark

Which physicists would those be?

"no matter, no energy" no space, no time, no laws of physics, no nothing. Yet it is still something if you define it existent. — Skiessa

If there is no matter and energy, there is no space and time.

Not sure what the rest of what you said means.

Which physicists would those be? — Metaphysician Undercover

Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on the quantum vacuum state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

In no way does the quantum vacuum state indicate that something comes from nothing. It indicates that what some people might think of as nothing, the vacuum state, is really something.

In no way does the quantum vacuum state indicate that something comes from nothing. It indicates that what some people might think of as nothing, the vacuum state, is really something. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure. But the vacuum state is what most people would define as nothing. I'm not a physicist. If you are, please answer - Does quantum mechanics allow anything nothingier than the vacuum state?

I'm no physicist, but what the quantum vacuum principle demonstrates, is that within the context of a real world situation (i.e. within something), it is impossible to create nothing.

I'm no physicist, but what the quantum vacuum principle demonstrates, is that within the context of a real world situation (i.e. within something), it is impossible to create nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Aren't you just defining the question away. If something is created from it, it's not nothing. No way around that one.

Right, it's not nothing, so to declare it as nothing is a false declaration.

Right, it's not nothing, so to declare it as nothing is a false declaration. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I asked previously, is there anything closer to nothing than the vacuum state? Or is nothing impossible?

I would say that nothing is impossible. Clearly we have something, and to create nothing from something is just as unlikely as to create something from nothing.

"Nothing" is not a term of art with a settled meaning, either in physics or in philosophy (as a whole). Depending on how you want to interpret it, the OP question may not even be coherent. For example, if "nothing" is used merely as a quantifier, then "to get something from absolute nothing" doesn't even make grammatical sense.

I think nothing is very important. To me it is the essence of possibility and thus without it nothing is possible. Take for example a page from a book and a blank sheet of A4. Which of the two has potential? Which of the two allows for possibilities? Indeed the page from a book may have value - wisdom, knowledge, joy, sorrow, etc. - but the blank page is brimming with infinite possibilities that can be actualized.

Thus nothing had to exist. Otherwise, the universe wouldn't have existed at all.

You are conflating 'nothing' with something...potentiality.

The word 'Nothing' has sense, but it has no referent.

I would say that nothing is impossible. Clearly we have something, and to create nothing from something is just as unlikely as to create something from nothing — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting. Thank you. Does that only work in a situation where there is time and space?

So what subject should I be reading about? More about the vacuum state?

For example, if "nothing" is used merely as a quantifier, then "to get something from absolute nothing" doesn't even make grammatical sense. — SophistiCat

I think we are talking about the physical world, not grammar. Maybe not. I just don't want the discussion to collapse into a back and forth between people who mean different things by "nothing."

"Nothing" is not a term of art with a settled meaning, either in physics or in philosophy (as a whole). Depending on how you want to interpret it, the OP question may not even be coherent. For example, if "nothing" is used merely as a quantifier, then "to get something from absolute nothing" doesn't even make grammatical sense. — SophistiCat

Well, maybe we should try to agree on a definition. Here are some:

[1] Not anything; no single thing.
[2] A concept denoting the absence of something, and is associated with nothingness.
[3] Empty space
[4] No space at all, and no time, no particles, no fields, no laws of nature
[5] The ground state of a gapped quantum system
[6] Imagine the surface of a ball. It's a finite space but with no boundary. Then imagine it shrinking down to a point
[7] Non-existence, non-being

Boy. None of that is very helpful. It leaves us just about where we are now.

If nothing has no referent how do we define it?

Only by means of its sense (how it relates to other words in a language system), since there is no actual or real referent.

That's about it, "nothing" has many different meanings dependent on the context in which it is used. In context, it always seems to mean something, so it usually doesn't refer to nothing in an absolute sense. Sometimes in philosophy though people will introduce the idea of absolute nothing, which is what wax1232 did in the op. It is highly doubtful that absolute nothing is at all meaningful, though some may use it as a counterfactual in a thought experiment; "if there was absolutely nothing, then...". How could this be a meaningful thought experiment?

"Nothing" in the absolute sense (absence of everything) is logically inconsistent and therefore impossible. If there were absolutely nothing then there would still be the fact that there is absolutely nothing, but this fact would be something, a property of reality.

if you define the 'nothing' as something that exists it must be something rather than nothing, because it at least has the property of existence. and if we assume that a pre-state to the universe existed, how can we define it to be something rather than something else?

a bit of an offroad, but can we define the space-time to consist of matter/energy? have we ever observed the space-time directly? from what i know we have observed the space-time only indirectly, by it's interaction with the matter and energy.

a bit of an offroad, but can we define the space-time to consist of matter/energy? have we ever observed the space-time directly? from what i know we have observed the space-time only indirectly, by it's interaction with the matter and energy. — Skiessa

It is my understanding that space and time are created by matter and energy. I'm not sure, but I think that the recent detection of gravity waves represents direct observation of space-time. Metaphysician Undercover?

Sorry, I don't believe in space-time. I think it's an unwarranted conflation of "space" and "time", which refer to two distinct aspects of reality.

"The nothing noths."

Sorry, just had to bring Heidegger's possible meaningless description of nothing, or possibly deeply meaningful description, of nothing here. : )

gravity waves are a good notice. i'm not too familiar with the concept but they seem to be kind of direct observation of the space-time. maybe some who's educated in physics will tell us about the implications it'll make about the composition of the space-time.

According to modern laws of physics, you CAN'T get something from nothing or at least not as far as we understand how the universe works.

Think of it this way, in order for something to exist (at least in the way we understand HOW something exist) something must have CAUSED it to exist since it can't come from nothing. When some scientist say that something came from nothing, they really are saying that it came from somewhere/something we don't know about. Why they don't say this is because they can't say they know it came from some unknown because then people would ask HOW they know it came from this unknown place, so instead they just say it came from 'nothing' instead. It is really a catch-22 since there is no way to really answer questions about such things in a way that is satisfactory to layman who don't understand the problem.


Also think of it this way, in order to KNOW that SOMETHING ACTUALLY came from NOTHING you FIRST have to rule out ANY POSSIBILITY that it came from someplace you are unaware of first. Since there are an INFINITE number of places and or ways something could have come into existence through means we are unaware of it is a given that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to PROVE in any way shape of form that something could come from nothing.

If you really think of it, it is even IMPOSSIBLE for us to logically to conceive of how this is possible other than how things 'magically' are created in fiction through one's imagination, and even then it is considered it considered a given it is 'conjured' from some unknown place or means which we are unaware of.

So in order to not let your panties get in a wrinkle over such worries it is best as a rule of thumb just to accept that it is possible for things to come into existence through means we are not yet aware of and to accept that when scientist or even authors of fictions talk about 'things coming into existence from nothing', they are really talking about them coming into existence through places or means we have yet to understand, and just leave it at that.

What about the idea, proposed by some physicists, that we live in a static universe and, therefore, time is an illusion?

And all these arguments about things causing other things--I have read at least one philosopher say that causality has been rejected. I believe it goes like this: reality is a seamless whole, not a chain/collection of causes and effects.