The WLC/SC "Something From Nothing" Cosmology Thread

[_Meadowchik]

Definitions:
Matter; Atoms, molecules, motorbikes.

Particles; Subatomic 'objects' and all processes, fields, forces, mechanisms that cause them to become physically observable/measurable.

Forces; Gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear and all currently immeasurable forces. E.g., dark energy.

Nothing; Axiomatic. I.e., non-existence of all measurable or non-measurable forces or particles.

So, using the scientific method, how can particles and forces come into existence from nothing?

This seems like a puzzle for theism, too. Who is God? How was God created? How can god be eternal without beginning or end?

[Guest]

So, using the scientific method, how can particles and forces come into existence from nothing?

he just summarized this.

"Nothing; Axiomatic. I.e., non-existence of all measurable or non-measurable forces or particles."

As Dr. W explained it, quantum fields would "conflict with special relativity"; if they physically existed they would be measurable precisely by their conflict with SPR.

What part of this answer specifically do you dispute?

I think, Tana, that you are putting way too much faith into what seems to be a simple question, but is not a simple question. There are about a hundred ways to dispute your simple axiom of "nothingness".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

[_Morley]

DrW. Did I tell you just how enjoyable you are to read?

I'm pretty sure most of us learned something from that last post.

Thanks for that post, DrW. I’ve never learned so much from a post about nothing. Great explanation.

I worry, therefore I am. I'd like to add my voice to those who have expressed gratitude...

Et cetera.

Dammit. Now I have to go back and read this thread.

[_DrW]

So, using the scientific method, how can particles and forces come into existence from nothing?

he just summarized this.

"Nothing; Axiomatic. I.e., non-existence of all measurable or non-measurable forces or particles."

As Dr. W explained it, quantum fields would "conflict with special relativity"; if they existed they would be measurable precisely by their conflict with SPR.

What part of this answer specifically do you dispute?

I think, Tana, that you are putting way too much faith into what seems to be a simple question, but is not a simple question. There are about a hundred ways to dispute your simple axiom of "nothingness".

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

Dean Robbers,

You are the philosopher / metaphysicist (or is it metaphysician?) here. Since you chose to use what I consider the metaphysical *existence / non-existence* wording rather than what I consider the physical *something / nothing* wording , would you be adverse qualifying the word "existed" with the phrase "existed as physical entities"?

Theoretically, quantum fields exist, it is just that they can't be detected, and have no physical influence or manifestation (and therefore qualify as "nothing"), until they begin to interact or are excited in some way. By such interaction, they give rise to energy, gravity, spacetime and matter.

[_Res Ipsa]

Maybe it’s overly simplistic, but I think about it this way: I can imagine all kinds of things that don’t actually exist. The fact that I can imagine the “nothing” described by tana does not give me any reason to believe it had ever existed outside of human imagination. in my opinion, that makes “how did something come from nothing” a non-skillful question.

[_Gadianton]

Since you chose to use what I consider the metaphysical *existence / non-existence* wording rather than what I consider the physical *something / nothing* wording , would you be adverse qualifying the word "existed" with the phrase "existed as physical entities"?

Theoretically, quantum fields exist, it is just that they can't be detected, and have no physical influence or manifestation (and therefore qualify as "nothing"), until they begin to interact or are excited in some way. By such interaction, they give rise to energy, gravity, spacetime and matter.

I believe I changed the offending passage? Let me know if there is something else to clear up. It wasn't my intention to switch the goal posts. It was my intention to suggest that Tana might be switching the goal posts soon or perhaps should switch the goal posts.

I quite honestly think Dr. W hit the ball out of the park considering precisely Tana's question, which was, defining nothing as the absence of all physical things, and I think this is what most people have in mind when they ask the question. There is a brute impulse about the empty set, which is the "nothing" and then things like atoms, energy, and fields which are "something", yet this field (per W) doesn't behave like other fields. (maybe there is some intuition that it gives rise to other fields so why would it be the same?)

Tana's charge in the edited post is that Dr. W is playing word games, which isn't the case from what I see, as he answered precisely in line with Tana's definition of nothing.

We take what "nothing" is as intuitively for granted, which is why I linked to the article which I think shows how difficult it is to talk about nothing.

[_DrW]

Since you chose to use what I consider the metaphysical *existence / non-existence* wording rather than what I consider the physical *something / nothing* wording , would you be adverse qualifying the word "existed" with the phrase "existed as physical entities"?

Theoretically, quantum fields exist, it is just that they can't be detected, and have no physical influence or manifestation (and therefore qualify as "nothing"), until they begin to interact or are excited in some way. By such interaction, they give rise to energy, gravity, spacetime and matter.

I believe I changed the offending passage? Let me know if there is something else to clear up..

Dean,

In the parlance of the board - All is well. All is well.

(There was no intent to indicate offense, just curiosity. You're the one in charge of the metaphysics on this thread anyway.)

Oh, and thanks for the link - absolutely on point.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Gad!

I quite honestly think Dr. W hit the ball out of the park

which I think shows how difficult it is to talk about nothing.

[_Chap]

Dang it, is Ceeboo going to post a gif every time anybody says anything on this board?

[_Ceeboo]

Dang it, is Ceeboo going to post a gif every time anybody says anything on this board?

Now go away!