Questions - something and nothing

In my opinion either you define the 'nothing' as a pre-existing state to the universe which means its something existent (leading to guestion of why do you define it to be nothing rather than something), or you define it as non-existent which equals that the existence of the universe is non-causal.

Does the science have any reason to assume either of these options? I haven't heard of any. They both seem to imply this form of existence (the concept of the universe) to be the so called purpose, or peak of the existence, rather than just another layer in the existence which as a whole might be something greater than the human brain could ever understand.

How far do you have to stretch the guestion of the existence versus non-existence to make the existence in itself look rational? Or is it just that the non-existence cannot exist because if it would, it would be existent? Or is our thought of whats rational just plain wrong? And why ever would the existence take the form of physical universe where i am conscious and writing this comment right now? If they aim to a theory of everything the problem of the physical universe itself seems to be their smallest issue.

Quoting wax1232

I have some questions about something and nothing:
1. Is it possible to get something from absolute nothing?
2. Is there difference between "nothing" in philosophy and "nothing" in physics?
3. I saw theory about universe from "nothing" but was it really absolute nothing? Is that possible?

Question 1 - It is my understanding that physicists have concluded that matter and energy can be created from nothing.

Question 2 - Is there a meaning of "nothing" in physics? Isn't it just no matter, no energy? Philosophers make it much more complicated.

Question 3 - Isn't that just a rephrasing of Question 1?

How about some help from someone who knows what the hell their talking about.

Reply to T Clark "no matter, no energy" no space, no time, no laws of physics, no nothing. Yet it is still something if you define it existent.

Quoting T Clark

Question 1 - It is my understanding that physicists have concluded that matter and energy can be created from nothing.

Which physicists would those be?

Quoting Skiessa

"no matter, no energy" no space, no time, no laws of physics, no nothing. Yet it is still something if you define it existent.

If there is no matter and energy, there is no space and time.

Not sure what the rest of what you said means.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Which physicists would those be?

Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on the quantum vacuum state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Reply to T Clark
In no way does the quantum vacuum state indicate that something comes from nothing. It indicates that what some people might think of as nothing, the vacuum state, is really something.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

In no way does the quantum vacuum state indicate that something comes from nothing. It indicates that what some people might think of as nothing, the vacuum state, is really something.

Sure. But the vacuum state is what most people would define as nothing. I'm not a physicist. If you are, please answer - Does quantum mechanics allow anything nothingier than the vacuum state?

Reply to T Clark
I'm no physicist, but what the quantum vacuum principle demonstrates, is that within the context of a real world situation (i.e. within something), it is impossible to create nothing.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I'm no physicist, but what the quantum vacuum principle demonstrates, is that within the context of a real world situation (i.e. within something), it is impossible to create nothing.

Aren't you just defining the question away. If something is created from it, it's not nothing. No way around that one.

Reply to T Clark
Right, it's not nothing, so to declare it as nothing is a false declaration.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

Right, it's not nothing, so to declare it as nothing is a false declaration.

As I asked previously, is there anything closer to nothing than the vacuum state? Or is nothing impossible?

Reply to T Clark
I would say that nothing is impossible. Clearly we have something, and to create nothing from something is just as unlikely as to create something from nothing.

"Nothing" is not a term of art with a settled meaning, either in physics or in philosophy (as a whole). Depending on how you want to interpret it, the OP question may not even be coherent. For example, if "nothing" is used merely as a quantifier, then "to get something from absolute nothing" doesn't even make grammatical sense.

Reply to wax1232 I think nothing is very important. To me it is the essence of possibility and thus without it nothing is possible. Take for example a page from a book and a blank sheet of A4. Which of the two has potential? Which of the two allows for possibilities? Indeed the page from a book may have value - wisdom, knowledge, joy, sorrow, etc. - but the blank page is brimming with infinite possibilities that can be actualized.

Thus nothing had to exist. Otherwise, the universe wouldn't have existed at all.

Reply to TheMadFool

You are conflating 'nothing' with something...potentiality.

The word 'Nothing' has sense, but it has no referent.

Quoting Metaphysician Undercover

I would say that nothing is impossible. Clearly we have something, and to create nothing from something is just as unlikely as to create something from nothing

Interesting. Thank you. Does that only work in a situation where there is time and space?

So what subject should I be reading about? More about the vacuum state?

Quoting SophistiCat

For example, if "nothing" is used merely as a quantifier, then "to get something from absolute nothing" doesn't even make grammatical sense.

I think we are talking about the physical world, not grammar. Maybe not. I just don't want the discussion to collapse into a back and forth between people who mean different things by "nothing."

Quoting SophistiCat

"Nothing" is not a term of art with a settled meaning, either in physics or in philosophy (as a whole). Depending on how you want to interpret it, the OP question may not even be coherent. For example, if "nothing" is used merely as a quantifier, then "to get something from absolute nothing" doesn't even make grammatical sense.

Well, maybe we should try to agree on a definition. Here are some:

• [1] Not anything; no single thing.[2] A concept denoting the absence of something, and is associated with nothingness.[3] Empty space [4] No space at all, and no time, no particles, no fields, no laws of nature[5] The ground state of a gapped quantum system[6] Imagine the surface of a ball. It's a finite space but with no boundary. Then imagine it shrinking down to a point[7] Non-existence, non-being

Boy. None of that is very helpful. It leaves us just about where we are now.

Reply to Cavacava If nothing has no referent how do we define it?

Reply to TheMadFool Only by means of its sense (how it relates to other words in a language system), since there is no actual or real referent.

Reply to Cavacava
That's about it, "nothing" has many different meanings dependent on the context in which it is used. In context, it always seems to mean something, so it usually doesn't refer to nothing in an absolute sense. Sometimes in philosophy though people will introduce the idea of absolute nothing, which is what wax1232 did in the op. It is highly doubtful that absolute nothing is at all meaningful, though some may use it as a counterfactual in a thought experiment; "if there was absolutely nothing, then...". How could this be a meaningful thought experiment?

"Nothing" in the absolute sense (absence of everything) is logically inconsistent and therefore impossible. If there were absolutely nothing then there would still be the fact that there is absolutely nothing, but this fact would be something, a property of reality.

Reply to T Clark Reply to T Clark if you define the 'nothing' as something that exists it must be something rather than nothing, because it at least has the property of existence. and if we assume that a pre-state to the universe existed, how can we define it to be something rather than something else?

a bit of an offroad, but can we define the space-time to consist of matter/energy? have we ever observed the space-time directly? from what i know we have observed the space-time only indirectly, by it's interaction with the matter and energy.

Quoting Skiessa

a bit of an offroad, but can we define the space-time to consist of matter/energy? have we ever observed the space-time directly? from what i know we have observed the space-time only indirectly, by it's interaction with the matter and energy.

It is my understanding that space and time are created by matter and energy. I'm not sure, but I think that the recent detection of gravity waves represents direct observation of space-time. Metaphysician Undercover?

Reply to T Clark
Sorry, I don't believe in space-time. I think it's an unwarranted conflation of "space" and "time", which refer to two distinct aspects of reality.

"The nothing noths."

Sorry, just had to bring Heidegger's possible meaningless description of nothing, or possibly deeply meaningful description, of nothing here. : )

Reply to T Clark gravity waves are a good notice. i'm not too familiar with the concept but they seem to be kind of direct observation of the space-time. maybe some who's educated in physics will tell us about the implications it'll make about the composition of the space-time.

Reply to wax1232
According to modern laws of physics, you CAN'T get something from nothing or at least not as far as we understand how the universe works.

Think of it this way, in order for something to exist (at least in the way we understand HOW something exist) something must have CAUSED it to exist since it can't come from nothing. When some scientist say that something came from nothing, they really are saying that it came from somewhere/something we don't know about. Why they don't say this is because they can't say they know it came from some unknown because then people would ask HOW they know it came from this unknown place, so instead they just say it came from 'nothing' instead. It is really a catch-22 since there is no way to really answer questions about such things in a way that is satisfactory to layman who don't understand the problem.


Also think of it this way, in order to KNOW that SOMETHING ACTUALLY came from NOTHING you FIRST have to rule out ANY POSSIBILITY that it came from someplace you are unaware of first. Since there are an INFINITE number of places and or ways something could have come into existence through means we are unaware of it is a given that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to PROVE in any way shape of form that something could come from nothing.

If you really think of it, it is even IMPOSSIBLE for us to logically to conceive of how this is possible other than how things 'magically' are created in fiction through one's imagination, and even then it is considered it considered a given it is 'conjured' from some unknown place or means which we are unaware of.

So in order to not let your panties get in a wrinkle over such worries it is best as a rule of thumb just to accept that it is possible for things to come into existence through means we are not yet aware of and to accept that when scientist or even authors of fictions talk about 'things coming into existence from nothing', they are really talking about them coming into existence through places or means we have yet to understand, and just leave it at that.

What about the idea, proposed by some physicists, that we live in a static universe and, therefore, time is an illusion?

And all these arguments about things causing other things--I have read at least one philosopher say that causality has been rejected. I believe it goes like this: reality is a seamless whole, not a chain/collection of causes and effects.

Reply to WISDOMfromPO-MO the block universe. very fascinating idea, and i think that the wave function of particles may actually suggest it to be true. we know that the particles are actually waves that just collapse, or peak into a particle when observed. we can only observe the wave function indirectly by experiements such as double-slit, while every time we try to observe it it appears indeed as a particle. the problem this causes is that when the universe is said to began, there was no observer - just the space-time and the fundamental particles. as the wave-particle dualism suggests the whole mass of particles must have been in a propability wave form, meaning only a potentially physical matter. how could this propability state of the universe ever have evolved into an actual physical world we see now, if there was no observer in the beginning? the widely accepted idea amongst the physicists is the quantum decoherence, but as far as i know it hasn't been ever proven - just accepted as a tool to overcome the otherwise decisive problem of the fundamental form of the matter. if we abandon the decoherence, doesn't it indeed suggest that the universe is a 4-dimensional block, where the causality we observe doesn't indicate the arrow of time, but rather just the order of the matter in the block?

block universe, meaning either a physical block where every possible moment, or possible form of the universe, exists (like a movie), or a potential block, where every possible outcome exists potentially (like a video game).

it opens another problem: if the universe is a block, it must be stagnant, meaning that there can be no evolution, no life, or any ongoing process. obivously the idea of eternal, stagnant matter spontaneoysly awakening into life, starting to experience the universe in 3+1 dimensions instead of the natural stagnant 4D wouldn't make any sense. and yet we are here in the internet discussing about the nature of the universe. so if we accept the block universe, wouldn't this then suggest that the consciousness must be something not created by the universe; that the universe acts as a receptor to the consciousness; that the universe exists to be experienced from somewhere beyond it?

just a thought, but the concept of us being spiritual beigns experiencing the universe for some purpose is the basis of every single known religion in the world, with thousands of years of written history. the same concept being strikingly common theme in near death experiences, regardless of if the person is religious or atheist.

Quoting dclements

According to modern laws of physics, you CAN'T get something from nothing or at least not as far as we understand how the universe works.

Think of it this way, in order for something to exist (at least in the way we understand HOW something exist) something must have CAUSED it to exist since it can't come from nothing. When some scientist say that something came from nothing, they really are saying that it came from somewhere/something we don't know about.

Name the specific modern laws of physics that say you can't get something from nothing?

To say "in order for something to exist (at least in the way we understand HOW something exist) something must have CAUSED it to exist since it can't come from nothing," is just restating your original argument. You're using your argument as evidence for itself. That's called begging the question.

Some scientists consider the possibility that something can come from nothing. They don't mean "somewhere/something we don't know about."

Quoting T Clark

Some scientists consider the possibility that something can come from nothing.

I think that's the pop science version of the story. I was disappointed to find that the real theory in question doesn't say that.

Dclements has pointed you toward the Law of Explanation. It's sturdier than any physical law.

Quoting Mongrel

I think that's the pop science version of the story. I was disappointed to find that the real theory in question doesn't say that.

Dclements has pointed you toward the Law of Explanation. It's sturdier than any physical law.

What I said was true - Some scientists consider the possibility that something can come from nothing. That's not pop science, it's true. I don't know if they're right or not.

As far as I can tell, Dclements argument boils down to this - If something comes from it, it can't be nothing, which, obviously, is begging the question. I am not familiar with the Law of Explanation and I can't find any reference to it.

Reply to T Clark Which scientists?

"Law of Explanation" is the way Schopenhauer put it. That you have confidence in it is obvious, so it would be dubious for you to deny that you believe it. You've never come across that line of reasoning?

Quoting Skiessa

?WISDOMfromPO-MO the block universe. very fascinating idea, and i think that the wave function of particles may actually suggest it to be true. we know that the particles are actually waves that just collapse, or peak into a particle when observed. we can only observe the wave function indirectly by experiements such as double-slit, while every time we try to observe it it appears indeed as a particle. the problem this causes is that when the universe is said to began, there was no observer - just the space-time and the fundamental particles. as the wave-particle dualism suggests the whole mass of particles must have been in a propability wave form, meaning only a potentially physical matter. how could this propability state of the universe ever have evolved into an actual physical world we see now, if there was no observer in the beginning? the widely accepted idea amongst the physicists is the quantum decoherence, but as far as i know it hasn't been ever proven - just accepted as a tool to overcome the otherwise decisive problem of the fundamental form of the matter. if we abandon the decoherence, doesn't it indeed suggest that the universe is a 4-dimensional block, where the causality we observe doesn't indicate the arrow of time, but rather just the order of the matter in the block?

block universe, meaning either a physical block where every possible moment, or possible form of the universe, exists (like a movie), or a potential block, where every possible outcome exists potentially (like a video game).

it opens another problem: if the universe is a block, it must be stagnant, meaning that there can be no evolution, no life, or any ongoing process. obivously the idea of eternal, stagnant matter spontaneoysly awakening into life, starting to experience the universe in 3+1 dimensions instead of the natural stagnant 4D wouldn't make any sense. and yet we are here in the internet discussing about the nature of the universe. so if we accept the block universe, [b]wouldn't this then suggest that the consciousness must be something not created by the universe; that the universe acts as a receptor to the consciousness; that the universe exists to be experienced from somewhere beyond it?

just a thought, but the concept of us being spiritual beigns experiencing the universe for some purpose is the basis of every single known religion in the world, with thousands of years of written history. the same concept being strikingly common theme in near death experiences, regardless of if the person is religious or atheist[/b].

That is very interesting and illuminating, especially the part that I put in bold.

Thank you for taking the time to share all of that.

Quoting Cavacava

Only by means of its sense (how it relates to other words in a language system), since there is no actual or real referent

Some things about the definition of nothing:

The scope of nothing's definition is quite broad. At one end it could simply be the negation of something and at the other, it negates everything. The common thread between the two being the notion of absence.

If we take the former, negation of something, it's quite easy to comprehend e.g. take a box, remove its contents, and the meaning of nothing is adequately conveyed. Repeat this with other objects and the comprehension improves. The latter, negation of everything, can be understood simply by extending the particular understanding we can grasp to the general.

So, in my opinion, nothing as the negation of something, has referent(s) and nothing as the negation of everything is understood in terms of the former.

Nothing can mean at least the following:

• [1] Nothing within a specified context (for example, there is nothing in the jar on my shelf (to be exact, there's air and dust in there))[2] Practically nothing[3] No matter nor energy[4] The absence of even space where the aforementioned matter or energy could exist

I believe 1) is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. Anyway, nothing is not an exactly defined thing and what it means always depends on what context it's used in. Sometimes it means the same thing from physics and philosophy point of view, sometimes not.

To the first question, in my opinion the answer is yes. Not physically but you can say/think nothing and end up with more thoughts or words exchanged than what was started with.