Four proofs of the nonexistence of God

[RoadRunner79]

As I had already said, I don't know (however something going on within that vacuum seems plausible).  What testimony or reason do you give, that I should stop here, and think that nothing is on the otherside?   Personally, I think that something has a lot more potential than nothing, and is a wiser assumption.  You need a pretty good reason for me to abandon the principle of causality in science.

You need to realize that a quantum oscillator is different than a classical one:

This energy spectrum is noteworthy for three reasons. First, the energies are quantized, meaning that only discrete energy values (integer-plus-half multiples of ħω) are possible; this is a general feature of quantum-mechanical systems when a particle is confined. Second, these discrete energy levels are equally spaced, unlike in the Bohr model of the atom, or the particle in a box. Third, the lowest achievable energy (the energy of the n = 0 state, called the ground state) is not equal to the minimum of the potential well, but ħω/2 above it; this is called zero-point energy. Because of the zero-point energy, the position and momentum of the oscillator in the ground state are not fixed (as they would be in a classical oscillator), but have a small range of variance, in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The ground state probability density is concentrated at the origin, which means the particle spends most of its time at the bottom of the potential well, as one would expect for a state with little energy. As the energy increases, the probability density becomes peaked at the classical "turning points", where the state's energy coincides with the potential energy. (See the discussion below of the highly excited states.) This is consistent with the classical harmonic oscillator, in which the particle spends more of its time (and is therefore more likely to be found) near the turning points, where it is moving the slowest. The correspondence principle is thus satisfied. Moreover, special nondispersive wave packets, with minimum uncertainty, called coherent states oscillate very much like classical objects, as illustrated in the figure; they are not eigenstates of the Hamiltonian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_ha...oscillator

Ok... this to me, points towards a cause for the effect we see.   What is it, that leads you to believe that nothing was a cause.  How do you come to this conclusion?

---

---

You might want to read The Physical Universe by Professor Frank Shu:


I have read it several times, and in it, Professor Shu discusses a Universe that is infinite in spatial extent.  But, here's another website for you:


https://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/news/beyond...e-universe

LOL. What happened to the other 3 points? Abandoning Morrison after just one post!! Your hatred of WLC leads you to believe that people have answers to his arguments and all you have to do is post a link and your done. It seems you don't even understand them. 

Now you want me to follow you down a theoretical rabbit trail and redefine infinity so we can somehow go back and apply it to something else entirely to prop up your theory? You couldn't even quote mine something that would even suggest this is a productive mode of inquiry into the question of a past infinite number of cause/effects. No thanks!

---

Last year, during a debate, I heard an interesting concept, that I would like to investigate more fully. The idea was that physical things are by definition bound. They can be measured and quantified. Therefore, they cannot be infinite. In contrast, the only things that can be infinite our necessarily non-physical. If anyone knows what this philosophy is called, or has search terms I might look for, I would appreciate.

This is a little different, than an actual infinite set of things; but seemed to fit here, and as we are talking about space being infinite, and if this premise is correct, means that it cannot be physical. That and I have been wanting to look into it more; for a while now.