1. Hello!

Knowing that "nothing" entails no substance, no space, no time, no properties, no potentiality;
does the creation (by any entity) of something from nothingness make sense?

2.

3. 0=1-1

Simple equation.

Nothingness carries within it somethingness. Equal amounts of positive and negative somethings.
If you start with nothing, you can, in theory, get vast quantities of matter, paired with equal quantities of antimatter. If the two are separated within a rapid period, they can each survive alone. Thus from nothing, you get something.

4. The Universe is, by definition, all that exists. The Universe is Everything. Why does Everything exist? Why does Anything exist? Logical intuition suggests the following. Whatever Everything is, its existence must have been inevitable, for if Everything is all that there is, then there could have been no other variables that might have prevented Everything from existing. Furthermore, given that the only conceivable alternative to Everything was Nothing, it therefore follows that the existence of Nothing was impossible, due to Everything having been inevitable. Thus, there is no such phenomenon as Nothing. Therefore, Nothing can be eliminated from further consideration, as Nothing was never an option to begin with. Nothing never existed, nor could Nothing have ever existed.

Un = Ev - No ... thus ... Ev = No + Un

The Universe therefore exists Ex Nihilo.

5. If the quantum vacuum is the physical representation of the concept 'nothing' then yes everything physical (the whole universe) comes from nothing.
See BBC Documentary 'Everything and Nothing' part2 'Nothing' by Jim Al-Khalili.

It the empty set (denoted by the Danish letter Ø, which I actually have here on my Nordic keyboard) is the mathematical
representation of the concept 'nothing', then yes everything in mathematics can be derived from nothing.
It would need a much longer entry to show this fully.

6. In "empty space" virtual particles 'pop' into existence - then 'pop' out of existence all the time. At least that's the findings of the quantum mechanics. (They will work on your car as well, but only for discrete periods of time ) However, prior to the Big Bang, not only was there 'nothing' save the 'singularity', but there wasn't space either. One can derive the belief that matter generates space. That may be wrong, but it makes sense so far.

So, there weren't any virtual particles popping in and out of existence. The 'space' or 'volume' of the Universe began when the Big Bang starting - uh - Banging.

One of the fundamental laws of physics is neither matter nor energy (two faces of the same basic 'thing') can be created or destroyed. What there is now is all there is, all there ever was and all there will ever be. Therefore, all the Universe had to be tied up in that singularity. However big or small it was.

So, how long was the singularity in place prior to it Banging? No one knows. Nothing - and I mean nothing happened prior to the bang, so time was meaningless in that context. Nor was anyone there with a watch or calendar to measure how long the singularity just hung around doing nothing.

So, what made the singularity go Bang? No one knows. The mathematically inclined Cosmologists have calculated back to a period of time just 10 to the negative 43 seconds AFTER the initial Bang. I will accept their word they have done this with the greatest amount of care and precision possible, and with the best information available. But even those very smart guys agree and publicly admit they do not know what happened at the precise Bang instant.

Nor can anyone say with any certainty - in fact not even any degree of defensibility - from where the singularity came, sprang, derived, deployed or hied into view.

One can only hope some day mankind will discover something indicating an exception to the 'you can't get something from nothing' rule. Some day...

This is the point where the discussion turns to some form of Divinity.

Which Divinity is the rub, eh?

I think many can be ruled out. The Greek and Roman gods - Zeus, Apollo, Minerva, Mars, Orville, Mercury (I do keep getting them all mixed up, sorry) - are descendents of earlier beings, the Titans. I think the Titans in turn descended from other before them. They don't even claim to the originators of the Universe. The Norse mythology begins with a cow appearing from a snow melt - that sort of rules out the claim of originator as well. The Egyptian, Hindu, North and South American Indian groups all begin their cosmologies with "... so and so took such and such and made the Earth..." Buddhist cosmology posits an eternal and cyclic Universe not consistent with scientific understanding of entropy and heat death. None of them claim - let alone argue or defend such claim - to a creation ex nihilo.

Except for the Jews and thereby the Christians. Please: If anyone knows of another group claiming ex nihilo creation, please advise me.

Of course the main problem with this view is it brings in that rather inconvenient God fellow; the one who tells us how to live our lives, tells us what is right and wrong, tells us what is really important, and in addition to all this telling, He tells us there's a Hell. Who wants to hear that?

This is as good a place to end as any. Good night.

7. Good question Archie. I wonder why we suppose right off the bat that there has to be non-existence to start with. If there isnt anything, isnt that vacuum-ness something, and though its not much, nothing is kinda something in the 0 = 1-1 or 0 = 1+4 - 2+3 as skeptic puts it). Its kind of tough to imagine non existence.

We also have a tendency to see things in black and white, hot cold, beginning end. When it rains we say "hey its starting to rain", when the rain was already raining but out of view or in another state previously (visible cloud or invisible airborn water molecules[humidity] or ocean water), the rain was there before but either unrecognizable or invisible.

8. Originally Posted by Archie
I

Nor can anyone say with any certainty - in fact not even any degree of defensibility - from where the singularity came, sprang, derived, deployed or hied into view.

One can only hope some day mankind will discover something indicating an exception to the 'you can't get something from nothing' rule. Some day...

This is the point where the discussion turns to some form of Divinity.
It does? Whatever happened to trying to figure it out? Like most people, when the going gets tough, invent a God.

9. Originally Posted by icewendigo
Its kind of tough to imagine non existence.
I agree. However, existence - or non-existence - is not dependent on my or anyone else's ability to imagine. As far as I understand the concept, icewendigo, prior to the Bang, there was no space. Therefore, no 'vacuum-ness' even. Yup, hard to imagine.

Originally Posted by icewendigo
We also have a tendency to see things in black and white, hot cold, beginning end.
I would phrase it 'Humanity sees things from a perspective limited by geography and time.' We are creatures existing in time and limited in scope, so we think of all things in the same manner. You mentioned it's hard to imagine non existence. It's hard to imagine twenty minutes, looking forward. It is hard to imagine one thousand years, forward or backward. It is hard to imagine what lies beyond the horizon. (Most of us have been there and are remembering, not imagining.) Yes, humanity is very limited.

Originally Posted by icewendigo
... the rain was there before but either unrecognizable or invisible.
Now I'm going to disagree, and in so doing make another point about humanity's limitations. No, the rain was not there before the droplets started falling. The water was there, perhaps even in droplet form; but it's not rain until it begins falling. Our human experience and our personal learning tend to color not only how we see things, but the selection of things to see.

You know, for a rather limited bunch of near chimpanzees, we aren't doing so bad about figuring out stuff we can't see.

As to the initial cause, or the initial alternation of nothing into something: We're here. Something did it.

10. Originally Posted by Archie
This is the point where the discussion turns to some form of Divinity.
Originally Posted by zinjanthropos
It does? Whatever happened to trying to figure it out? Like most people, when the going gets tough, invent a God.
And when anyone mentions God, the deophobes wet themselves.

For those who read on the subject, any number of scientists have tried to 'figure it out'. None have. NONE. Not even a theory less convoluted than an Eternal God.

So far, the only 'serious' theory regarding 'prior to the Big Bang' is the Multi-verse theory. Ultimately, this theory postulates an infinite number of 'universes' with a volume of a 'multi-verse'. This multi-verse has existed eternally and will exist eternally; no first cause required.

How that theory is any more likely or even more plausible than the Eternal God theory has escaped my grasp. However, it does get rid of that pesky God fellow. Everyone do a happy dance; we're not responsible after all!

11. Originally Posted by Archie
And when anyone mentions God, the deophobes wet themselves.
Arch, there's nothing to be afraid of. Take a closer look, you're the one living in fear. Take care of that stain.

For those who read on the subject, any number of scientists have tried to 'figure it out'. None have. NONE. Not even a theory less convoluted than an Eternal God.
What, we're done trying? When did that happen? Does the world end tomorrow, what about the forum?

Theories that can withstand testing sound simple. Unfortunately the Eternal God theory is not one of them.

12. Originally Posted by Archie
One of the fundamental laws of physics is neither matter nor energy (two faces of the same basic 'thing') can be created or destroyed. What there is now is all there is, all there ever was and all there will ever be.
An 'even more fundamental' 'law of physics' is Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle relating energy and time.

It's this that allows those virtual particles.

The universe that you, me and scientists are describing here, is a construct created by concious human minds.

13. You would think that if something can come from nothing then the reverse is true

14. Originally Posted by Archie
One of the fundamental laws of physics is neither matter nor energy (two faces of the same basic 'thing') can be created or destroyed. What there is now is all there is, all there ever was and all there will ever be.
Originally Posted by Elterish
An 'even more fundamental' 'law of physics' is Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle relating energy and time.

It's this that allows those virtual particles.
I'll challenge your 'even more fundamental' claim, Elterish. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was not discovered until the advent of quantum mechanics, whereas the idea that matter (in its simplest forms) cannot be created or destroyed is much older. Virtual particles exist much as stocks that are 'sold short'. They have to be 'returned' to whatever source donated the energy in the first place. All that aside, I'm much more interested in your statement:
Originally Posted by Elterish
The universe that you, me and scientists are describing here, is a construct created by concious human minds.
Could you please show some basis for that claim? Or are you simply playing with QM concepts of 'observing' the phenomenon?

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement