I have a question

[ManMachine]

All matter is energy, we know this from E=MC2.

In short the only thing you require to make mass is energy. The question, therefore is not where did all this 'stuff' or 'matter' come from but where did all the energy come from, out of which all the 'stuff' is made.

Quantum Physics theorises that all the energy in the universe (and hence all the 'stuff') totals zero. It is, in this case, not inconceivable that what we perceive as 'stuff' is in-fact a very special kind of nothing. In which case, none of the fundamental laws of physics need to change to create our universe from nothing, which in fact, they don't. So, we have a good solid basis for theorising that a universe full of 'stuff' came from nothing.


MM

The kind of nothing which has everything as one of its potential states is pretty far from the pure, unrelenting nothing that seems implied in the cosmological argument. If nothing, energy/matter and dark energy/matter are all intrinsic states of pre-bang nothing, isn't it really misleading to call it "nothing"? How is that really any different than saying before the big bang there existed the conditions necessary to give rise to everything?

My point ot the OP is simply that enough understanding exists for us to join a few jots and build a coherent theory of a Universe from nothing. But as you point out, this depends on what we understand to mean 'nothing'.

You are absolutely right. A Quantum Vacuum is as close to nothing in nature as we have encountered, and one of the features of the QV is that it's full of fundamental particles popping in and out of existance. Which is far removed from what most people think of when they think of 'nothing'.

'Nothing' is one of those concepts that humans have used for centuries but, from what we understand so far, is not the same in nature as our concept of it, a bit like geocentrism in the middle ages.

I'd argue it's a conceptual issue, not a physics issue.

MM