"That's not nothing"

[Mister Agenda]

[Yeah, that right there is the equivocation fallacy. When they say "nothing" there, they admit that they mean quantum foam, and the "fluctuations" of it which produce things. Apologists mean something entirely different.

The quantum fluctuations themselves are something from nothing. There is no true nothingness because nothingness 'fizzes'.

The uncertainty principle says that you cannot simultaneously know the position and momentum of a particle. The position and momentum of a particle that doesn't exist is 0,0. Since we can't know that, it might exist, and therefore it does, at least sometimes. Quantum vacuum fluctuations aren't coming from something, they are causeless.

Even if there were no space and time, these fluctuations would still happen, they are essentially temporary bits of energy and space flashing into and out of existence. That's how the hypothesis goes, anyway.

---

Logic isn't a property to be had. Regardless, "nothingness" as apologists mean isn't anything, it has no properties. You're making use of a linguistic trick here. "Nothingness" is not a referent, it's not a thing. It can't have properties for precisely that reason.

Clearly it has the property of not having properties. It seems superficially to involve a contradiction to say nothingness has no properties.