(April 3, 2014 at 3:08 pm)max-greece Wrote:

(April 3, 2014 at 3:02 pm)alpha male Wrote: That's a nonsensical question.

Actually, again, it isn't. There is no evidence that "nothing" - depending on how we want to define that, can actually exist.

I believe that's why he stated it's a nonsensical question. It is, IMHO, absurd to inquire into the possible location of something which cannot exist (even conceptually, again IMHO).

(April 3, 2014 at 3:21 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(April 3, 2014 at 3:08 pm)max-greece Wrote: Actually, again, it isn't. There is no evidence that "nothing" - depending on how we want to define that, can actually exist.

I believe that's why he stated it's a nonsensical question. It is, IMHO, absurd to inquire into the possible location of something which cannot exist (even conceptually, again IMHO).

Nothing is absence of anything.
The question is can there be absence of anything. Or is there always something.

(April 3, 2014 at 3:22 pm)tor Wrote:

(April 3, 2014 at 3:21 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: I believe that's why he stated it's a nonsensical question. It is, IMHO, absurd to inquire into the possible location of something which cannot exist (even conceptually, again IMHO).

Nothing is absence of anything.
The question is can there be absence of anything. Or is there always something.

Its not quite as simple as that. What is anything? Is it any-thing? A vacuum is a lack of any thing - but it still contains fields, sub-particles and all sorts of things that are not things.

This is rapidly becoming one of the biggest questions in that divide between science and philosophy. What is nothing?

If you can answer that then we can probably decide if something from nothing is actually possible. Certainly in terms of nothing as it has been defined historically creating something is no problem whatsoever.

Jury's out right now. It may never come in unanimously.

(April 3, 2014 at 3:08 pm)max-greece Wrote: Actually, again, it isn't. There is no evidence that "nothing" - depending on how we want to define that, can actually exist.

It's nonsensical to say that nothing would exist.

Further, as there's no such thing as nothing in our universe, of course there's no evidence regarding it - we can't study nothing. It's a philosophical issue.

Quote:According to Quantum Theory nothing (nothingness to be clear) is unstable. It's fully possible that true nothing cannot exist.

To my knowledge quantum theory addresses vacuums, which aren't nothingness. Nothing can't be unstable, as instability is a property or attribute, and something that has a property or attribute is, well, something.

The question is can you remove EVERYTHING. Or is there something which never goes away.
Remove fields. Remove space. Remove time. Remove EVERYTHING. Until you are left with NOTHING.

(April 3, 2014 at 3:38 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 3, 2014 at 3:08 pm)max-greece Wrote: Actually, again, it isn't. There is no evidence that "nothing" - depending on how we want to define that, can actually exist.

It's nonsensical to say that nothing would exist.

Further, as there's no such thing as nothing in our universe, of course there's no evidence regarding it - we can't study nothing. It's a philosophical issue.

Quote:According to Quantum Theory nothing (nothingness to be clear) is unstable. It's fully possible that true nothing cannot exist.

To my knowledge quantum theory addresses vacuums, which aren't nothingness. Nothing can't be unstable, as instability is a property or attribute, and something that has a property or attribute is, well, something.

This can run and run forever. Quantum Physics is moving on from vacuums in a big way. It appears that what the physicists are saying (not unanimously BTW) is that particles and sub-particles can suddenly burst out of nothing, as long as the net energy of what is produced is zero.

In terms of the formation of the universe this would require balanced production of matter and anti-matter in the early symmetrical universe. As the universe aged (post inflation) that symmetry was lost. This is slowly being confirmed by observation.

The latest confirmation (last week) that they have traced the gravitational wave from the inflation of the universe is now leading to confirmation of a multiverse (I haven't yet understood why).

It appears, therefore, that the "nothing" between universes is constantly creating them.

Its mind-boggling - but that's where we seem to be.

If all of the above is true then it can be said that "nothing" is unstable merely because that is the best way to describe the apparent impossibility of the state.

The question is can there be absence of nothing which creates universes. The very very nothing.
In order to identify nothing you must identify everything and remove/destroy it.

(April 3, 2014 at 3:50 pm)max-greece Wrote: This can run and run forever. Quantum Physics is moving on from vacuums in a big way. It appears that what the physicists are saying (not unanimously BTW) is that particles and sub-particles can suddenly burst out of nothing, as long as the net energy of what is produced is zero.

Can you link to something on this? Again, what I've read on the subject is that a vacuum is generally not considered to be nothing due to the space-time of the universe, and we obviously can't study something outside our universe.

So alpha what did god create universe from?

(April 3, 2014 at 3:52 pm)tor Wrote: The question is can there be absence of nothing which creates universes. The very very nothing.
In order to identify nothing you must identify everything and remove/destroy it.

If the theory is correct then you could never get to "true nothing" as particules and sub-particles would be created faster than you can remove them.

If we take time out of the equation too then how are we going to remove anything?

---

(April 3, 2014 at 3:58 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(April 3, 2014 at 3:50 pm)max-greece Wrote: This can run and run forever. Quantum Physics is moving on from vacuums in a big way. It appears that what the physicists are saying (not unanimously BTW) is that particles and sub-particles can suddenly burst out of nothing, as long as the net energy of what is produced is zero.

Can you link to something on this? Again, what I've read on the subject is that a vacuum is generally not considered to be nothing due to the space-time of the universe, and we obviously can't study something outside our universe.

Well here's part of the fight which is amusing - Krauss Vs the rest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjDnB9xWodM