Well, I think that is just a play on the term "0 energy". "0 energy" in this context is not truly a lack of energy but a composite of negative and positive energy.Originally posted by Mentat
If you knew Quantum Mechanics, you'd realize that it doesn't require "magic" to create a universe from nothing. Do you know what the net energy of the universe is? It's zero. Every bit of matter is equal to a certain amount of positive energy, but gravity (which is produced by all matter) has negative energy. Conclusion: The negative energy of the gravitational field - produced by all objects - cancels out the positive energy - produced by all objects. Thus, it takes exactly 0 energy, to make a universe.
Also, Eyesee, your use of the word "nothing" was the real problem, but as you seem to have abandoned the use of this word (and have instead taken the word "magic"), I don't see any need for me to explain the flaw to you. If you want to (and are open-minded enough), check out the aforementioned thread (Exercise in Nothing Semantics).
This is still a logical model for existence, which ultimately leads to infinite regression. If you don't believe me, just keep asking "where does that come from" out of every "fundamental" something you discover.
I'm not saying that an infinitely regressive logical universe isn't possible, just that in such, the question of existence is futile and unprovable since one can never count to infinity.
The only way to resolve the question of existence is through a break in logic. Magic. Well, I guess some would say here that magic itself is futile and unprovable. My answer to this would be that the fact that something exist proves that it came to existence. And the only way to come into existence from a true void is by magic.
Last edited by a moderator: