Is it possible for something to come from nothing?

Nothingness. From nothing it comes and eventually nothing will remain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

which is non-sense

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

don't you mean Nothing-sense..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And what determined how much of the stuff there is?

What determined its total amount?

Why that particular amount of it?

 

Or heat death as they call it. I don't know. Anyway that the universe came from nothing is fully compatible with modern physics, according to physicist Victor Stenger.

 

Yes, something obviously can come from nothing.

In the Neverending Story, the land of Fantasia, and all creatures within were devoured by, "The Nothing."

Eventually, the Nothing will need to grab a magazine and sit down to take a crap. At which time, something will come from Nothing.

This proves that something can come from Nothing. It also proves that we never landed on the Moon because Radiometric dating is unpredictable and inaccurate.
Nothing can come from it.

 

And that's why some basic stuff could not have been around forever.

 

My opinion is that it is illogical to reject best evidence. So far that points to the Big Bang, and with it, the creation of spacetime. The Prime Mover idea dies on the vine if there is no beginning from whence the first stone is tossed.

The idea of causation is tied to the arbitrary insistence that things have to be a certain way, even out at the edge of reality. The main arguments here are "it just doesn't make sense". That's why I said we're just not wired to understand it.

I don't think the question is properly framed. It might be better to ask what it means to be outside of spacetime, that is, in some unfathomable state "before" time "begins". Until that begins to make sense, it's pointless to ask what came first.

It is equally incomprehensible to imagine an infinite past, since now we must deal with how the clock has already spent an infinite number of ticks to arrive at the present.

What does is mean for time to stand still? That's the paradox that accompanies the idea that time has a finite past. If the "first" era is timeless, it must last forever, since its clock remains stopped as realtime advances. If so, it must be concurrent with every slice of realtime that is/was/ever will be.

This brings to mind the concept of the photon existing outside of time, yet intersecting realtime, and its strange ability to pop in and out of existence...that is, if existence is implied by the observation of the massless particle that radiates as a wave.

This leaves one last possibility, that of a retrocausal or backward-flowing time stream, which would conceivably end at our beginning.

Finally, does time arise out of timelessness as a divergence from an asymptote? If so, it would apparently take forever to reach the present.

In light of these considerations, it seems pointless to keep circling back to the question of a Prime Mover.

 

Way back at post 18 was this remark:

which these folks missed:

 

which is not an argument that something came from nothing

since the particles , virtual ( virtual meaning here , a very , very short life existence )

and anti-particles do exist

your reasoning here is completely and absolutely mistaken

 

It is exactly that. It supports the idea in principle that things can arise from nothing as long as they are balanced with their opposite.

 

@spidergoat

It doesn't support the idea in principle that something can come from nothing virtual particles come from something (fluctuations of fields which are something).​

 

You will not exhaust this conversation. You will see it again many times. I know this.

I know nothing about nothing. The container of contents it is not.

 

See this thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113560

The Deduction of the Theory of Everything

 

See this reading of the Tao:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/tao/taote.htm

 

There is no known cause for such fluctuations.

 

@Syne

In other words we don't know that virtual particles come from nothing.​

 

If you back up until there is no time, then the planck fluctuations can be visualized as being allowed an infinite progression, without the need for a space or time increment to complicate it's conceptualization in the mind.

This is not a problem of the viable mechanics. It is a problem of the conceptualization of the viable mechanics.

 

In other words, there is no identifiable cause. Nothing is not identifiable, in and of itself. The most we can say is that quantum fluctuations occur in the absence of every known possible cause.

Now you are free to believe that there may be some cause as yet undetectable, but that is belief not science.