B Anything from Nothing: Uncovering the Possibilities

[Enty]

Unfortunately, we can never be sure of nothing. Even if we did appear to perceive something from nothing we could not be certain that our something didn't arise from some other thing that resided within that nothing of which we have no concept.

Then there's the little problem that even if there were nothing unless everything were nothing, nothings would have a boundary and as, by definition, nothing could cross that boundary we could never have an awareness of what lay within the boundary. Consequently even if we perceive what appears to us to be something from nothing what we have really observed is the appearance of something from a boundary which may or may not have encapsulated nothing.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

 

[phinds]

Unfortunately, we can never be sure of nothing. Even if we did appear to perceive something from nothing we could not be certain that our something didn't arise from some other thing that resided within that nothing of which we have no concept.

Then there's the little problem that even if there were nothing unless everything were nothing, nothings would have a boundary and as, by definition, nothing could cross that boundary we could never have an awareness of what lay within the boundary. Consequently even if we perceive what appears to us to be something from nothing what we have really observed is the appearance of something from a boundary which may or may not have encapsulated nothing.

I recognize every single word in that post, but strung together in that particular order, I can't make any sense out of them at all.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Certain that our something that our something didn't nothing. Even if we what appears to us not have encapsulated nothing. Appears to us to a boundary which may could cross that boundary that even if there the appearance of something there were nothing unless to us to be there were nothing unless certain that our something we could never have we can never be and as, by definition, could cross that boundary what appears to us we did appear to we have really observed sure of nothing. Even something from nothing what what we have really of what lay within little problem that even of what lay within were nothing unless everything even if we perceive some other thing that sure of nothing. Even from a boundary which nothing unless everything were to perceive something from the boundary. Consequently even were nothing unless everything is the appearance of have an awareness of sure of nothing. Even nothing of which we as, by definition, nothing were nothing, nothings would did appear to perceive Unfortunately, we can never what lay within the Consequently even if we we can never be didn't arise from some nothing of which we to us to be of which we have not be certain that from nothing what we nothing we could not can never be sure would have a boundary and as, by definition, within the boundary. Consequently may or may not resided within that nothing boundary which may or we can never be something didn't arise from that even if there perceive something from nothing something from a boundary have really observed is can never be sure nothing could cross that appearance of something from which we have no something from nothing we little problem that even even if there were something from nothing we we did appear to nothing we could not nothing we could not nothing of which we unless everything were nothing.

 

[phinds]

Certain that our something ...

Yeah. What he said.

 

[PhanthomJay]

...unless everything were nothing.

Now that makes sense!

 

[Vishal Rana]

If something from nothing is true then "anything" can come from nothing .. What is stopping it ?
For all we know a totally different universe could have come from nothing or a Dragon or Sentient being could have come from nothing.

In short are there any theories to why only "this something" came from nothing. Why not anything else from nothing?

I think the word “nothing” is throwing you off. It threw me off I thought “how can something come from absolutely nothing?” There has to be something there obviously I’m assuming the “nothing” is referring to the unknown, something we don’t yet know. I know physics is weird but in the way I think, there has to be something to create something or does that not violate the conversation of energy law? Unless the “nothing” we thing “something” is coming from is actually coming from another dimension? Hence why a 2D creature wouldn’t be able to comprehend an object they see entering the 3rd dimension, for them it disappeared. The same should apply to us surely.

 

[phinds]

I think the word “nothing” is throwing you off...

You should have stopped right there.

 

[Vishal Rana]

You should have stopped right there.

Why

 

[phinds]

Why

Because arguments about what "nothing" is always go nowhere. You've also gone off into a mythical "other dimension" as a possible solution. AND you require conservation of energy in a regime in which it is not known if that applies (as it does not apply, for example, over cosmological distances).

 

[Vishal Rana]

Because arguments about what "nothing" is always go nowhere. You've also gone off into a mythical "other dimension" as a possible solution. AND you require conservation of energy in a regime in which it is not known if that applies (as it does not apply, for example, over cosmological distances).

But is the other dimension really a myth tho?

 

[Ibix]

But is the other dimension really a myth tho?

Yes. If you think otherwise, please provide an appropriate peer-reviewed reference discussing the topic - this is the minimum standard for an idea to be discussed on PF.

Note that I am aware that spacetime is usually modeled as four dimensional, but there is no time where a spacelike slice of it qualifies as "nothing". So references discussing general relativity are not sufficient. Also, some theories like Kaluza-Klein theory and string theory add further dimensions on top of the usual four. Again, these are not nothing and are not part of an explanation for the origin of the universe, so are not sufficient either.

 

[PeterDonis]

This seems like a good place to close this thread.