By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - How something can come from nothing

Soleron said:
I favour the idea that 'nothing' is a sea of random spontaneous energy. Sometimes, given enough time, a universe forms. Sometimes a universe is destroyed. This is the simplest and most natural extension of what we already know about vacuum. The universe's laws and so on are actually unique to it and a property of its formation rather than universal truth.

Your conception of 'nothing' as truly empty and uneventful is a human thing and at odds with quantum mechanics.


Spoken like a pro. You managed to say what i was struggling to say.



Around the Network
Nem said:

If anti-matter exists and negates matter. What happens when theres equal ammounts of both? The real question is what made the balance tip over to the matter side... maybe it didnt and we have an anti-universe paralel to ours.

We observe much more matter than antimatter, and we think there is a fundamental symmetry (Charge-Parity symmetry) that was broken early on in the universe. We observe this in B and K meson formation, confirming that there exist asymmetric processes that could cause this.



Soleron said:
Nem said:

If anti-matter exists and negates matter. What happens when theres equal ammounts of both? The real question is what made the balance tip over to the matter side... maybe it didnt and we have an anti-universe paralel to ours.

We observe much more matter than antimatter, and we think there is a fundamental symmetry (Charge-Parity symmetry) that was broken early on in the universe. We observe this in B and K meson formation, confirming that there exist asymmetric processes that could cause this.


I like you. Its rare to see such inteligence in internet forums.

I know these things, but i am not an expert in the field so its difficult for me to explain them as clearly as you do.



Nothingness means no possibilities .



Nem said:
Soleron said:
...




I like you. Its rare to see such inteligence in internet forums.

I know these things, but i am not an expert in the field so its difficult for me to explain them as clearly as you do.

Thanks. Physics is my major. I'm going into teaching so I have to be good at explaining that kind of thing.



Around the Network
VXIII said:
Nothingness means no possibilities .


Read Soleron's first post. You will understand that the problem is your definition of "nothingness".



Stefan.De.Machtige said:
Nem said:
Stefan.De.Machtige said:
It's a pointless OP.

Unless someone has put together an experiment where something come forth out of nothing, it's just a bunch of words.

Something else comes to mind that is nothing more than a bunch of words and many people take it for granted. Difference is, the OP has a logic point.

Besides, it sounds like a crazy experiment. You'd basically be replicating the big bang.

Off-course, it's the only way to prove it happened.

I don't see the logic in the OP. It applies to either faith or filosofie. Neither are science, nor fact. And those two are needed to present an atheist point of view.



If you are suggesting that only verifiable facts are worth discussing, then this thread is not for you.

Soleron said:
I favour the idea that 'nothing' is a sea of random spontaneous energy. Sometimes, given enough time, a universe forms. Sometimes a universe is destroyed. This is the simplest and most natural extension of what we already know about vacuum. The universe's laws and so on are actually unique to it and a property of its formation rather than universal truth.

Your conception of 'nothing' as truly empty and uneventful is a human thing and at odds with quantum mechanics.


I don't want to make any assertions on what 'nothing' is. just used the concept of 'nothing' that almost everyone thinks of when thinking of "before the universe."

Well, the argument in the OP is flawed, particularly because we don't talk of laws having existence. Abstract laws and rules, by definition, do not exist, even now. Point being, someone cannot point to law, and say, "There it is. It resides under my dining room table." In other words, a law is not a thing.

However, the argument that something cannot come from nothing is not a necessary truth. Bertrand Russell made this argument a long time ago, and I tend to agree with it. There's no logical contradiction in saying something came from nothing. Its perfectly possible for a dog to not exist one second and then exist the next second, with nothing causing it.

The argument that something cannot come from nothing is an inductive argument, and, in my opinion, it is a strong one because we do not have any examples of something existing uncaused, however, something existing uncaused is still possible and within reason.



so because the rule itself did not exist it allowed itself to create itself in order to create the rule that nothing can come out of nothing?

It makes perfect Sense!!

well done I'm an athiest now!




    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(