the block universe. very fascinating idea, and i think that the wave function of particles may actually suggest it to be true. we know that the particles are actually waves that just collapse, or peak into a particle when observed. we can only observe the wave function indirectly by experiements such as double-slit, while every time we try to observe it it appears indeed as a particle. the problem this causes is that when the universe is said to began, there was no observer - just the space-time and the fundamental particles. as the wave-particle dualism suggests the whole mass of particles must have been in a propability wave form, meaning only a potentially physical matter. how could this propability state of the universe ever have evolved into an actual physical world we see now, if there was no observer in the beginning? the widely accepted idea amongst the physicists is the quantum decoherence, but as far as i know it hasn't been ever proven - just accepted as a tool to overcome the otherwise decisive problem of the fundamental form of the matter. if we abandon the decoherence, doesn't it indeed suggest that the universe is a 4-dimensional block, where the causality we observe doesn't indicate the arrow of time, but rather just the order of the matter in the block?

block universe, meaning either a physical block where every possible moment, or possible form of the universe, exists (like a movie), or a potential block, where every possible outcome exists potentially (like a video game).

it opens another problem: if the universe is a block, it must be stagnant, meaning that there can be no evolution, no life, or any ongoing process. obivously the idea of eternal, stagnant matter spontaneoysly awakening into life, starting to experience the universe in 3+1 dimensions instead of the natural stagnant 4D wouldn't make any sense. and yet we are here in the internet discussing about the nature of the universe. so if we accept the block universe, wouldn't this then suggest that the consciousness must be something not created by the universe; that the universe acts as a receptor to the consciousness; that the universe exists to be experienced from somewhere beyond it?

just a thought, but the concept of us being spiritual beigns experiencing the universe for some purpose is the basis of every single known religion in the world, with thousands of years of written history. the same concept being strikingly common theme in near death experiences, regardless of if the person is religious or atheist.

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. — dclements

Name the specific modern laws of physics that say you can't get something from nothing?

To say "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," is just restating your original argument. You're using your argument as evidence for itself. That's called begging the question.

Some scientists consider the possibility that something can come from nothing. They don't mean "somewhere/something we don't know about."

Some scientists consider the possibility that something can come from nothing. — T Clark

I think that's the pop science version of the story. I was disappointed to find that the real theory in question doesn't say that.

Dclements has pointed you toward the Law of Explanation. It's sturdier than any physical law.

I think that's the pop science version of the story. I was disappointed to find that the real theory in question doesn't say that.

Dclements has pointed you toward the Law of Explanation. It's sturdier than any physical law. — Mongrel

What I said was true - Some scientists consider the possibility that something can come from nothing. That's not pop science, it's true. I don't know if they're right or not.

As far as I can tell, Dclements argument boils down to this - If something comes from it, it can't be nothing, which, obviously, is begging the question. I am not familiar with the Law of Explanation and I can't find any reference to it.

Which scientists?

"Law of Explanation" is the way Schopenhauer put it. That you have confidence in it is obvious, so it would be dubious for you to deny that you believe it. You've never come across that line of reasoning?

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO the block universe. very fascinating idea, and i think that the wave function of particles may actually suggest it to be true. we know that the particles are actually waves that just collapse, or peak into a particle when observed. we can only observe the wave function indirectly by experiements such as double-slit, while every time we try to observe it it appears indeed as a particle. the problem this causes is that when the universe is said to began, there was no observer - just the space-time and the fundamental particles. as the wave-particle dualism suggests the whole mass of particles must have been in a propability wave form, meaning only a potentially physical matter. how could this propability state of the universe ever have evolved into an actual physical world we see now, if there was no observer in the beginning? the widely accepted idea amongst the physicists is the quantum decoherence, but as far as i know it hasn't been ever proven - just accepted as a tool to overcome the otherwise decisive problem of the fundamental form of the matter. if we abandon the decoherence, doesn't it indeed suggest that the universe is a 4-dimensional block, where the causality we observe doesn't indicate the arrow of time, but rather just the order of the matter in the block?

block universe, meaning either a physical block where every possible moment, or possible form of the universe, exists (like a movie), or a potential block, where every possible outcome exists potentially (like a video game).

it opens another problem: if the universe is a block, it must be stagnant, meaning that there can be no evolution, no life, or any ongoing process. obivously the idea of eternal, stagnant matter spontaneoysly awakening into life, starting to experience the universe in 3+1 dimensions instead of the natural stagnant 4D wouldn't make any sense. and yet we are here in the internet discussing about the nature of the universe. so if we accept the block universe, wouldn't this then suggest that the consciousness must be something not created by the universe; that the universe acts as a receptor to the consciousness; that the universe exists to be experienced from somewhere beyond it?

just a thought, but the concept of us being spiritual beigns experiencing the universe for some purpose is the basis of every single known religion in the world, with thousands of years of written history. the same concept being strikingly common theme in near death experiences, regardless of if the person is religious or atheist. — Skiessa

That is very interesting and illuminating, especially the part that I put in bold.

Thank you for taking the time to share all of that.

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

Some things about the definition of nothing:

The scope of nothing's definition is quite broad. At one end it could simply be the negation of something and at the other, it negates everything. The common thread between the two being the notion of absence.

If we take the former, negation of something, it's quite easy to comprehend e.g. take a box, remove its contents, and the meaning of nothing is adequately conveyed. Repeat this with other objects and the comprehension improves. The latter, negation of everything, can be understood simply by extending the particular understanding we can grasp to the general.

So, in my opinion, nothing as the negation of something, has referent(s) and nothing as the negation of everything is understood in terms of the former.

Nothing can mean at least the following:

[1] Nothing within a specified context (for example, there is nothing in the jar on my shelf (to be exact, there's air and dust in there))
[2] Practically nothing
[3] No matter nor energy
[4] The absence of even space where the aforementioned matter or energy could exist

I believe 1) is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. Anyway, nothing is not an exactly defined thing and what it means always depends on what context it's used in. Sometimes it means the same thing from physics and philosophy point of view, sometimes not.

To the first question, in my opinion the answer is yes. Not physically but you can say/think nothing and end up with more thoughts or words exchanged than what was started with.