Something from Nothing

[Banned]

emotive.     There are some grammar ninjas in here.  (Some people use grammar nazi but I'm not any kind of nazi.)
"sky god" is belching out emotion?  LOL.  Hey at least they used the term god.  I tend to think "imaginary friend" is much better.
But if you want emotive, then I can wrap "imaginary friend" in a whole bunch of other fun and appropriate adjectives.  
If you start a discussion about the big bang, origin of the universe, and general physics, (cool!) the silly old book of ignorant fairy tales 
has no relevance or place. 

But continue.  This is fun reading.  At least you haven't been calling people stupid and claiming that they deserve eternal torture and crap like that.  You're improving.

...Didn't know how easy it is to make you exuberant !

---

This seems relevant.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/wat...spartanntp

Hawking made it interesting...
No space, no time, - nothing?

Except for a tiny dot? Or did that happen after nothing?

---

Theists worldview(usually):

God pops himself in to existence or exists for eternity - OK!

Universe pops in to existence or exists for eternity - NOT OK! Satan's lies.

Can the existence of anything be from nothing?

Our interpretation of what constitutes an existence, probably revolves around space and time, so it is fair to say, like Hawking suggests, that if those two did not exist, then there is nothing?

---

Is it possible to have "nothing?"

No. Not philosophically and not scientifically.

Why would it be so importat for science to convey such a notion, even by having "something" under the term "nothing?"

Ignorance 

What do you think of the article linked in Downbeatplumb's post?

[purplepurpose]

---

Theists worldview(usually):

God pops himself in to existence or exists for eternity - OK!

Universe pops in to existence or exists for eternity - NOT OK! Satan's lies.

Can the existence of anything be from nothing?

Our interpretation of what constitutes an existence, probably revolves around space and time, so it is fair to say, like Hawking suggests, that if those two did not exist, then there is nothing?

You simply cannot answer those kind of questions. "God's Magic did it" is even worst answer.

[Banned]

---

Can the existence of anything be from nothing?

Our interpretation of what constitutes an existence, probably revolves around space and time, so it is fair to say, like Hawking suggests, that if those two did not exist, then there is nothing?

You simply cannot answer those kind of questions. "God's Magic did it" is even worst answer.

There's a few people that keep on about the question of God, but I'm not discussing that.
We are talking about the ideas of something vs nothing. etc.

Or let's name them existence and non existence.

Existence can be defined, by space and tiime, and the absence of those is nothing, or non existence,
unless_______________
there are other forces where time and space are irrelevant - and those kind of forces have been considered by science.

Let's just say that the space time values we experience, are limited by the speed of light or whatever paramenters people can think of...
Can you image space time parameters so extreme - that our continuim is just a dot, or practically nothing?

For example,

Imagine stepping into a dark wall, which puts you into every place in the universe at once, but doesn't allow you to experience it because there's no time.

Or imagine stepping into a shaft of light, and you are shrunk down to nothing, but you exist forever, past, present and future, but you can't know it because you don't occupy any space.

These are the kind of things that have been considered.

[LadyForCamus]

When people like Krauss and Hawking talk about a universe from nothing or it makes no sense to talk about before the Big Bang they are being a bit deceitful. They are being deceitful because while they believe it is possible maybe even probable that our particular X, Y, Z, + T observable universe began with the Big Bang they also believe there was probably a background something that it came from.

String Theory is currently the leading theory on what that something is. Krauss even believes that if String Theory is true then a multiverse is probable. If a multiverse is true then there are other spacetime universes besides ours.

String Theory isn’t the only possibility though, and the Big Bang is far from confirmed. Other possibilities include our universe is cyclic. expanding and collapsing over and over again. Another possibility is it could be the result of the collapse of the false vacuum of a previous higher energy vacuum.

Krauss himself talks about some of this in this short article about the limits of knowledge.

String theory appealed to me when I first read it. I like aspects of all the main theories, and see plenty of overlapping.

Science wants to have a formula that accounts for matter which only considers what is observable or measureable, even if only in theory.
Which is somewhat consistent with the practice and application of scientific thinking.
While one theory will account for one phenomenon, it will fail where another doesn't. You would think that if we picked the best of each theory we'd have a better picture.

---

@Banned

Explain how god created the universe without quoting the Bible.

Good question, but we are discussing the treatment of the topic by the scientific and philosophical communities.

I know some people have fearfully belched out "sky god," so I'll wait until their fever dies down and they start communicating without being so immotive.

My response to your question belongs in the religious section, because I go by what the Bible contains.
But in this section, I am willing to explore the way people handle these topics, which they have pretty much covered.

So, let me make a prediction.  You’re going to attempt to poke holes in scientific explanations for the universe, so that you can turn around and say, “See?!  Science can’t explain it!” while at the same time refusing to provide your own explanation, or simply pointing to the Bible.  Am I far off here?

[Amarok]

String theory appealed to me when I first read it. I like aspects of all the main theories, and see plenty of overlapping.

Science wants to have a formula that accounts for matter which only considers what is observable or measureable, even if only in theory.
Which is somewhat consistent with the practice and application of scientific thinking.
While one theory will account for one phenomenon, it will fail where another doesn't. You would think that if we picked the best of each theory we'd have a better picture.

---

Good question, but we are discussing the treatment of the topic by the scientific and philosophical communities.

I know some people have fearfully belched out "sky god," so I'll wait until their fever dies down and they start communicating without being so immotive.

My response to your question belongs in the religious section, because I go by what the Bible contains.
But in this section, I am willing to explore the way people handle these topics, which they have pretty much covered.

So, let me make a prediction.  You’re going to attempt to poke holes in scientific explanations for the universe, so that you can turn around and say, “See?!  Science can’t explain it!” while at the same time refusing to provide your own explanation, or simply pointing to the Bible.  Am I far off here?

And even failing at that

[LadyForCamus]

And to answer your OP: no, I don’t believe ‘nothing’ is a logical possibility. Nothing cannot be any kind of thing, by its very definition. “Nothing” cannot exist in contrast to “something”. When people say “something from nothing”, they’re really saying “something from something else.” I think reality, whatever it is, has always existed and always will, because there is no logical alternative.

[Aegon]

Since I am neither an astrophysicist nor a religious zealot looking to prove everybody else wrong, I don't see a compelling reason to figure any of that drivel out. I sincerely do not care how the universe came to be. Interesting to read about on my lunch break, but the different theories do nothing to altar my beliefs.

Something, nothing, yada yada ..... I'm something, you're something, we live in and around something; that's all that really matters to me.

---

---

 Here is a brief 5 minute talk with Lawrence Krauss about the physical possibility of something coming from nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nCGywFr_00

Of course it's difficult to cover the subject in such a short time, but note that matter and anti matter 'particles' appear from nothing. 1:08.

What happens to "nothing" if it is discovered how this happens?

---

Isn't nothing always relative to something?

---

Can nothing be defined by physical properties or even mathematics which may include an absurdity?

---

This sounds like something Alan Watts would say. Something and nothing are distinct but of the same essence.... or something like that. 

Taking the eastern approach?

His statement regarding the relativity of something to nothing is just dualism, innit? Watts said a drove of similar stuff but he got a lot of it from Carl Jung. And Taoism. Obviously.

[Banned]

So, let me make a prediction.  You’re going to attempt to poke holes in scientific explanations for the universe, so that you can turn around and say, “See?!  Science can’t explain it!” while at the same time refusing to provide your own explanation, or simply pointing to the Bible.  Am I far off here?

I agree with scientific observations.

[purplepurpose]

You simply cannot answer those kind of questions. "God's Magic did it" is even worst answer.

There's a few people that keep on about the question of God, but I'm not discussing that.
We are talking about the ideas of something vs nothing. etc.

Or let's name them existence and non existence.

Existence can be defined, by space and tiime, and the absence of those is nothing, or non existence,
unless_______________
there are other forces where time and space are irrelevant - and those kind of forces have been considered by science.

Let's just say that the space time values we experience, are limited by the speed of light or whatever paramenters people can think of...
Can you image space time parameters so extreme - that our continuim is just a dot, or practically nothing?

For example,

Imagine stepping into a dark wall, which puts you into every place in the universe at once, but doesn't allow you to experience it because there's no time.

Or imagine stepping into a shaft of light, and you are shrunk down to nothing, but you exist forever, past, present and future, but you can't know it because you don't occupy any space.

These are the kind of things that have been considered.

Those kind of questions are just an empty chatter and speculation. They are useless - no benefits.

[Banned]

And to answer your OP: no, I don’t believe ‘nothing’ is a logical possibility. Nothing cannot be any kind of thing, by its very definition. “Nothing” cannot exist in contrast to “something”. When people say “something from nothing”, they’re really saying “something from something else.” I think reality, whatever it is, has always existed and always will, because there is no logical alternative.

That's the general philosophical view on "nothing."

However scientifically speaking, it is used as a comparison to something.

Space and time - the parameters which can be used to define existence, are they just terms of observation, to decribe dimensions, or are they caused by a physical power or law?

It is said that the BB created space and time.

Are space and time products of something physical...?

---

Those kind of questions are just an empty chatter and speculation. They are useless - no benefits.

Thought exercises are similar to physical exercise. Not everyone is in to it.