At the planck scale P1 is arguably meaningless or false. For example, does it take time for particles to pop in to, or out of, existence? — jkop

I think P1 is valid no matter how fast is the process.

Your pseudo-syllogism doesn’t produce a logical contradiction and, thusly, doesn’t prove the logical impossibility of nothing becoming something. Your argument, in its form (as best as I could infer), is:

P1: T ↔ C
P2: E → C
P3: N → !T → !C
C: E → (C & C!)

The conclusion doesn’t following from the premises. — Bob Ross

The argument follows from premises but it is not obvious because of the hidden premises (HPs). Please find the new version of the argument in pseudo-syllogism form in the following:

P1) Time is needed for change
P2) There is no change when there is no time (From P1) (HP)
P3) Nothing to something needs a change in nothing (HP)
P4) There is no time in nothing
C1) Therefore, change in nothing is not possible (From P2 and P4)
C2) Therefore, nothing to something is not possible (from P3 and C1)

I am not logician so I cannot write the argument in syllogism form. I would appreciate your help if you convert the argument to syllogism form.

I think I can write another argument in reductio ad absurdum form but I need time to think about it.

Secondly, I think you are thinking that nothing being unrestrained by time entails it cannot spontaneously be involved with temporal sequences, which doesn’t necessarily follow. I don’t see why one would believe that. — Bob Ross

I cannot follow you here. Do you mind elaborating?

Thirdly, P1 seems false to me or, at least, requiring further elaboration: I don’t think there needs to be an actual ‘change’ in the sense of a sequential, temporal movement of one thing to another thing even if the temporal relations are real. Time, in the sense of actual movement (of ‘change’ in terms of what you seem to be talking about) is simply a form of one’s experience: it is a mode by which your representative faculty intuits and cognizes objects—it does not exist beyond that. — Bob Ross

There are two things that I need to show: (1) Time is needed for any change and (2) Time is a substance.

1) Consider a change, A to B. A and B cannot lay at the same point otherwise A and B are simultaneous and there cannot be a change. Therefore, A and B must lay at two different points of a variable. Moreover, the second point, that B resides, must come after the first point, that A resides, if there is a change. This variable we call time.

2) According to general relativity, time is a component of spacetime. Spacetime is a substance though. By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. Spacetime's property is its curvature. Two phenomena confirm that spacetime is a substance or in other words confirm general relativity, namely gravitational wave and gravitational lens.

Not a problem! We're here to think with each other. Also welcome to the forums. You will encounter some people who will talk down to you or passively insult you for just bringing an idea up. Please ignore them. — Philosophim

Thanks for letting me know! I am happy to see a person who is open to a new idea.

Good start. Can time exist apart from spacetime? If so, can you describe what it is? If not, then we have to change premise one from "Time" to "Spacetime". — Philosophim

Well, space and time are interconnected and inseparable in the classical theory of spacetime, such as special and general relativity. There are quantum theories of spacetime though in which physicists discuss time as an emergent thing without classical spacetime. There is debate about these theories between physicists though. I however think that spacetime is fundamental and cannot be created or emerge so I agree with you that it is better to replace time with spacetime in P1 and P3.

I've always had problems with this problem.

I can visualize a sphere reducing to a point and vanishing... or not existing then appearing but how does it happen physically? — Mark Nyquist

Does time exist in this picture? What I am trying to say is that time does not exist in nothing and it is required for change, nothing to something, therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible.

The big bang theory is usually presented with a time component of 13.8 billion years but is time really a physical component or just a derived measure of physical matter. Probably just derived so it's not fundamental. — Mark Nyquist

Time is fundamental, by fundamental I mean it simply exists, it cannot be created or pop into existence. Time is a substance as well.

"Time is needed for any change." Although "time" is treated as a substance here, and "change" is really the question here, I can grant this premise. — Fire Ologist

Great to see that you agree.

I also don't like "needed." I would replace this premise with "Change, measurable over time, is." — Fire Ologist

I cannot understand what you mean by "Change, measurable over time, is.". Do you mind to elaborate?

Nothing to something is a change. Parmenides broke this down as being and not-being, which I like better for such a concise argument. I can grant this premise too as "Not-being to being, or nothing to something, is change." — Fire Ologist

Glad to see that you agree.

So we've asserted the existence of change, asserted time measures it, and then asserted one example of change as nothing to something, or not-being to being. — Fire Ologist

What do you mean by time measures the change?

"There is no time in nothing" This needs more explanation to be a meaningful statement. I mean I get what you are driving at, but this premise is supposed to do all the work in the argument, and it ranges from meaningless, to meaning not enough to do the work. Let's pretend there is nothing. Then let's pick a point and pretend it is time 1. Now let's wonder about was before time 1 and after time 1. There still is nothing before time 1 and nothing after time 1, no seeming change, nothing to mark or measure, but by now we have still asserted there is time in nothing. The point is, to merely assert "there is no time in nothing" without explanation, as to what time, and a concept such as "in nothing" are, I am left wondering if we can conclude anything yet. But you then just leap to your conclusion. — Fire Ologist

If we agree that time is a substance (or better to say spacetime a substance) then the premise follows trivially since nothing is a state of affairs that there is no spacetime, no physical,...

I get it. I agree something from nothing is a logical impasse. And I agree that there is physical, changing, moving substance. But the above isn't an argument. — Fire Ologist

True, what I mentioned is not an argument but a physical fact.

Parmenides said:
"Being is; for To Be is possible, and Nothingness is not possible."
"What is, is. Being has no coming-into-being or destruction, for it is whole of limb, without motion, and without end. And in never Was, nor Will Be, because it Is now. How, whence could it have sprung? Nor shall I allow you to speak or think of it as springing from Not-Being; for it is neither expressible nor thinkable that What-Is-Not, is."
"Nor will the force of credibility ever admit that anything should come into Being... out of Not-Being."
[Just as Being cannot come from nothing], how could Being perish? How could it come into being? If it came into being, it Is Not; and so too [it Is Not] if it is about-to-be at some future time. Thus coming-into-Being is quenched, and Destruction also, into the unseen."

Parmenides would agree with you that something from nothing, or nothing to something, are impossible. But his reasoning is from the fact that motion itself is impossible because motion itself requires what is not, to change into what is, which is impossible.

Parmenides was saying you can't pull a rabbit from what is utterly not-rabbit, and therefore, there is no such thing as change, as in change from what was not into what will be, also as in change from nothing to something.

You seem to be arguing that, just because there is change, just because we see rabbits come from things that were not rabbits, it still can't be true that something can come from nothing. Time as something that sits with things, but something that cannot sit with nothing, doesn't really do the work to explain how change is possible, or rule out how change is impossible. In fact Parmenides used the same assertion (something can't come from nothing), to more logically demonstrate quite a different result - time and change are not. — Fire Ologist

I have to read his argument a few times to understand it well. I however disagree with him that change is impossible.

Define "nothing" (including how that concept differs from 'nothing-ness'). As an undefined term, your argument seems invalid. — 180 Proof

According to the dictionary, nothing is a pronoun that means not anything; no single thing. Nothingness is a noun that means the absence of existence. To me, here by nothing I mean a state of affairs that there is no spacetime, no physical,... By something, I mean a state of affairs that there is spacetime, physical,...

"Time" is only a metric; to conflate, or confuse, a metric with what it measures as you do, Mok, is a reification fallacy (e.g. a map =|= the territory). — 180 Proof

According to general relativity, time is a component of spacetime that allows change to happen. Spacetime is a substance that curves near a massive object.

For instance, AFAIK, quantum fluctuations are random (i.e. pattern-less), therefore, not time-directional (i.e. a-temporal), and yet vacuum energy exists; so it's reasonable to surmise that "time" (re: spacetime) is not a fundamental physical property –only an abstract approximation (i.e. mapping) – of "something". — 180 Proof

I cannot understand what you are trying to say here. Spacetime to me is fundamental, by fundamental I mean it cannot be created or pop into existence.

No. The timelessness that existed before the beginning of time would put that "before" state in a time-frame. The beginning of time would have been a change from timelessness, and change cannot take place in the absence of time. Therefore, time cannot have begun. — Vera Mont

No, it is not proper to talk about the point before the beginning of time because time does not exist before its beginning and you need another time to investigate the state of affairs before the beginning of the former time.

Right. It is impossible for time to have begun, since a beginning is an event and time is necessary for anything to change and any event is a change. It is impossible for something to have begun existing, because that would have been an event.
Therefore, logically, nothing exists.
OK — Vera Mont

Well, time cannot begin to exist since this is a change, and time is needed for it (this leads to infinite regress as well)! Time however has a beginning. By beginning I mean a point that time exists at that point and afterward. Things can be created or come into existence once there is a time.

But I don't agree we can posit "time" as if it was a prior substance that some other prior substance like a "thing" or a "nothing" (or a thing seeking to change) combines with in order to build a "thing changing over time" or a "something from nothing." Speaking like this may help animate an argument, but to say "in nothing" at all presupposes something (not sure what but you at least have a "nothing" with an "in"). — Fire Ologist

Time is a component of spacetime that allows change to happen. Spacetime is a substance, by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. The property of spacetime is its curvature. The gravitation wave was observed experimentally. This confirms that spacetime is a substance.

Basically I agree with your conclusion but don't see your argument. — Fire Ologist

How about now? I defined time as a substance so it cannot exist in nothing.

Thank you very much for your positive contribution.

Let me point out a weakness that needs to be resolved here. — Philosophim

Ok, let's see if I can resolve the weakness.

P1. Time is needed for any change.
What is time? Without this definition nothing can be proven. — Philosophim

Time is one component of spacetime that allows change to happen. Spacetime itself is a substance, by substance I mean something that exists and has a set of properties. Spacetime's property is its curvature.

P2. Something appearing within nothing is a change.
Sounds good. — Philosophim

Cool.

P3. There is no time in nothing.
Since you have not defined time this cannot be declared as true or false. — Philosophim

This therefore a valid premise given the definition of time and nothing. That is true since spacetime is a substance and nothing is the absence of anything including spacetime.

Therefore there can be no changes in space alone.
Therefore your screen is blank and you are me. — unenlightened

To be more precise, space and time are part of a single manifold so-called spacetime. I dropped space to make things look simpler but one has to replace time with spacetime in all premises to be more accurate.

Time could be a trillionth of a second or even less, lots can happen in that time and we would not see it happen. — Sir2u

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I also don't understand the implication of this to the first premise as well.

If you mean that something existing where nothing existed before, then you might be right. A tree in your garden where there was none when you moved in 25 years ago does not mean that it came from nothing.
The idea that the universe came from nothing is in my opinion an unfounded statement, because they have no idea what exactly was there before. If the big bang theory is correct then there was something there before. — Sir2u

Cool, so you agree with the second premise.

Time is attached to action, not objects. — Sir2u

Time is a substance that allows change. Therefore, this premise is also correct given the definition of time and nothing.

Yes maybe so, but not using your syllogism. — Sir2u

It follows from my syllogism.

Try this.

P1. Inside the cubic volume A there is a complete vacuum.
P2. Objects need material to exists
P3. There is no material in a A
C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing. — Sir2u

I cannot understand how your conclusion follows from the premises.

Which means there must always have been something and time never started. — Vera Mont

That is not possible as well since we are dealing with an infinite regress in time.

P1) Time is needed for any change
OK — Alkis Piskas

Cool. I have to add that time is a substance that allows change. By substance I mean it is something that exists and it has a set of properties. The property of time is the rate at which it changes.

P2) Nothing to something is a change
It's not. If it is possible, it is creation. (Nothing cannot be changed since it doesn't exist.) — Alkis Piskas

I am not interested in discussing the creation from nothing here since it is off-topic (I can show that this act is logically impossible as well). I will open another thread on this topic shortly. I can however argue that nothing is a state of affairs that could exist. By nothing I simply mean, no spacetime, no physical, no God,... Therefore, nothing to something is a change.

P3) There is no time in nothing
There is no time --contained or involved-- in something either. Things are not composed of time. (P1 indicates that time is involved in change.) — Alkis Piskas

The premise is correct because time is a substance and because nothing is the absence of anything.

C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3)
OK, but it doesn't follow from P1-P3. — Alkis Piskas

It does follow from P1-P3.

There is no need for consciousness when it comes to reasoning. We can simulate the brain if we know how it works when it comes to reasoning. There are three questions that we need to answer before we can design an AI that can reason. These questions are:
1) How the new information is classified in the brain?
2) How the related information are linked in the brain?
3) How do we find new information from the linked information?