Argument Against an Infinite Past

[max-greece]

OK.

I am not calling empty space nothingness. I am calling what existed prior to the universe as nothingness - no fields, no particles, no gravity - nothing.

Well you see, the question of what existed 'prior' to the universe is, to put it mildly, controversial. More accurately, unknown at this point. However, most of (if not all) the proposals have something existing prior, be that a vacuum or something else entirely.

To illustrate. Matter and anti-matter collide - they eliminate each other completely. That resultant state is nothingness.

I don't think that's actually a correct way of looking at it. Virtual particle pairs neither come "from" nothing nor "return" to it.

The universe from nothing theory is essentially that process in reverse.

Which if true would make it inescapably inexplicable.

The argument as to whether we can refer to nothingness as existing is mute. In that we are making reference to the something that makes up the universe I think we can refer to the existence of nothingness - if nothing else to recognise the possible state where there is nothing.

It's not moot if it makes no sense. A 'state' of nothingness wouldn't be a state at all, but no thing at all. It's a nonsense concept I think.

I don't have any problem with your issues - this is all very theoretical stuff and lets be honest - I don't really get it - I am just relaying the bits I picked up on.

As it happens it does appear that Quantum Physics allows for the spontaneous production of sub-particles from nothing.

There is a video on this on Youtube I have watched a couple of times by Professor Klauss - does it make sense - possibly - in as much as anything in Quantum Physics does.

One thing Klaus mentions is that nothingness has mass - and they can measure it. How nothingness can have mass I have no idea but there you go.