How can anything come from nothing

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
311 replies · 28K views
Originally posted by Messiah
What evidence?

create: To cause to be
creator: That which causes to be

Just don't use the word "create", and you've solved your problem. Pure semantics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by Messiah
I certainly agree, that is why I think the term anti-matter is a misnomer.

What science terms 'matter and anti-matter' are not two countervalent qualities any more than nitrogen and tolulene...they are just two substances which go 'boom' when exposed to each other.

But this is relevant to the discussion of the word "nothing", how?
 
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Continue this charade with humans to germs, and do this ad infinitum with anything else you come up with beyond germs, because that's the choice you came up with. there's always something. Perhaps when you have taken the universe back a trillion years, times a trillion times a trillion, I'll come runnin to your camp, or maybe I won't, because you have'nt even touched the surface of how long an infinity of time is.
Actually I only intended to take this as far as human beings are concerned, to illustrate the possibility, but not necessarily carry it over to the creation of the Universe, because I myself don't know what happened?
 
Why does everyone assume the Universe 'began'? Why do you presume the phenomonon of existence is explained by a process i.e. creation?
Obviously not everyone assumes this. My preference at the moment is that the universe had a beginning, and that there was a creator. That nothing is all that is necessary for the creation of the universe.
 
Originally posted by Mentat
But this is relevant to the discussion of the word "nothing", how?

Relative to our finite world, size and position matter.

Relative to the infinite universe, they do not.

In the realm of finite elements, 'the equivalent of nothing' exists within whatever volume a quality and a countervalent quality may occupy.

Relative to the Universe; however, that volume is a point with no relative size - and 'NOTHING' exists at that point.

Equivalence IS relevant to the issue of "nothing"
 
Originally posted by Messiah
Relative to our finite world, size and position matter.

Relative to the infinite universe, they do not.

In the realm of finite elements, 'the equivalent of nothing' exists within whatever volume a quality and a countervalent quality may occupy.

That is not the "equivalent of nothing" (per E.i.N.S. --> That is not "not the equivalent of anything"...or, minusing double-negatives: That is the equivalent of something), it is the equivalent of a quality and a countervalent quality, clearly something since I'm referring to them, right?

Relative to the Universe; however, that volume is a point with no relative size - and 'NOTHING' exists at that point.

Equivalence IS relevant to the issue of "nothing"

Not if you realize that canceled out quantities have, in reality, more entities involved than just the original quantities, since you had to add something to reach the new equilibrium.
 
Originally posted by Mentat
That is not the "equivalent of nothing" (per E.i.N.S. --> That is not "not the equivalent of anything"...or, minusing double-negatives: That is the equivalent of something), it is the equivalent of a quality and a countervalent quality, clearly something since I'm referring to them, right?

(+1)+(-1) is the equivalent of Ø

Originally posted by Mentat
Not if you realize that canceled out quantities have, in reality, more entities involved than just the original quantities, since you had to add something to reach the new equilibrium.

?!
 
Originally posted by Messiah
(+1)+(-1) is the equivalent of Ø

How'd you make that symbol? Anyway, the empty set is something, otherwise you wouldn't be able to define it (please note my use of the word "it" to refer to it).

?!

It's quite simple, really (or, it seems simple to me): if I have one particle - say, an electron - then I introduced another particle - say, a positron - then I have a particle and its antiparticle, which equals 2 particles.

If I take the numbers 1 and -1, I have referred to two numbers, even if adding them together produces only one number (zero).
 
Originally posted by Mentat
How'd you make that symbol? Anyway, the empty set is something, otherwise you wouldn't be able to define it (please note my use of the word "it" to refer to it).

Alt 0216 = Ø
Yes - the difference between 'nothing' in the abstract connotation and 'nothing' in the logical connotation is that one is fictitious and the other exists. The problem most people have is in trying to reconcile the two - which cannot be done because only one exists.

Originally posted by Mentat
It's quite simple, really (or, it seems simple to me): if I have one particle - say, an electron - then I introduced another particle - say, a positron - then I have a particle and its antiparticle, which equals 2 particles.

If I take the numbers 1 and -1, I have referred to two numbers, even if adding them together produces only one number (zero).

Yes, but we are talking QUALitative, not QUANtitative. Positive and negative are qualities '1' is a quantity.

For every positive integer '+x' there exists an equal and opposite integer '-x'
For every positive quality '+apple' there exists an equal and opposite quality '-apple'.
Get the pix??
 
Originally posted by Messiah
Alt 0216 = Ø
Yes - the difference between 'nothing' in the abstract connotation and 'nothing' in the logical connotation is that one is fictitious and the other exists. The problem most people have is in trying to reconcile the two - which cannot be done because only one exists.

Look, I wouldn't have a problem with what you've been saying if you'd just stop using the word "nothing" wrongly. Can't you just say "empty set" or something? After all, if "nothing" is supposed to have one semantically correct use, then it only serves to confuse people if you use it for something else.

Yes, but we are talking QUALitative, not QUANtitative. Positive and negative are qualities '1' is a quantity.

For every positive integer '+x' there exists an equal and opposite integer '-x'
For every positive quality '+apple' there exists an equal and opposite quality '-apple'.
Get the pix??

Of course I do. Really, all I ask is that you not use the word "nothing" to refer to anything (which is logical, since "nothing" cannot refer to anything, otherwise it wouldn't be nothing), including empty sets or the number 0.
 
Originally posted by Mentat
Look, I wouldn't have a problem with what you've been saying if you'd just stop using the word "nothing" wrongly.

Ah - but
"The empty set" = 'Nothing' = Ø
"That which does not exist" = '         ' =          !

That which does not exist lacks everything, it has no properties or attributes, not even a definition or a name...:wink:
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Messiah
Ah - but
"The empty set" = 'Nothing' = Ø
"That which does not exist" = '         ' =          !

That which does not exist lacks everything, it has no properties or attributes, not even a definition or a name...:wink:

Wrong, the whole point rests on this: there is no thing that does not exist[/color]

From this it can be deduced that the word "nothing" doesn't refer to anything at all, but is simply another way of saying "not anything", and is used for convenience.

That's the whole point of the exercise in nothing semantics.

As to the empty set (I still can't seem to make that symbol...is it:  ?), "nothing" doesn't refer to the set (which is clearly something), but refers to that which is within that set...and, of course, there isn't anything within the set. Am I right?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Mentat
As to the empty set (I still can't seem to make that symbol...is it:  ?), "nothing" doesn't refer to the set (which is clearly something), but refers to that which is within that set...and, of course, there isn't anything within the set. Am I right?

Yes - that is one connotation.
My point is that there are at least two connotations...possibly MORE.

So far we have
"Nothing" - the empty set - Ø (hold down the alt key and enter the number 0216 simultaneously) the only logical definition
and
"Nothing" - That which does not exist - A fiction

How 'bout -
"Nothing" - That which neither HAS nor LACKS existence -

OR -
"Nothing" - a viable presidential candidate for the Democrat party

I could go on...and on...and probably will...

Jack
 
Here is a depiction of nothing as a conceptual thing. The circle in the pic is 2D, but think of it as in 3D. Like a balloon.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
What is inside the sphere is nothing. What is outside the sphere is nothing. The (concept) circle itself, or rather the balloon has no thickness. In other words - It is not physical. An example of this would be - Close your eyes and imagine a defined area within the darkness.

On the physical level - What we understand as physical is in reality ... a thought that acts in accordance with what we term physical laws.

If you think it's real - It is.....But not really.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Messiah
Yes - that is one connotation.
My point is that there are at least two connotations...possibly MORE.

So far we have
"Nothing" - the empty set - Ø (hold down the alt key and enter the number 0216 simultaneously) the only logical definition

Again, it's not that I don't think the empty set is the "right" definition of "nothing", it's that I think it just plain doesn't fit at all. What is inside the empty set? Nothing, right? However, the set itself is something, much like the word "nothing" is also something. This is the only way to remain semantically accurate.

and
"Nothing" - That which does not exist - A fiction

A fiction is something. If there isn't anything there, then there is nothing there (that is a redundant statement). However, if there is something, anything, (a word, a set, a belief, a story, anything) then it is not logical to say that "there is 'nothing' there". You need to stick within the bounds of proper semantics (and that shouldn't be so hard, since the word "nothing" is so obviously a compound of the words "no" and "thing"), otherwise there's no way to converse, since I will have a different definition of the words being used than you will.

How 'bout -
"Nothing" - That which neither HAS nor LACKS existence -

There is no such thing. You cannot say "that which" unless you are referring to something. "That which neither has nor lacks existence" (that which doesn't have existence, ITFP, for that matter) is completely meaningless.
 
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Here is a depiction of nothing as a conceptual thing.

"Nothing" as a conceptual what?
 
"Nothing" as a conceptual what?
Thing
 
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Thing

Then why did you call it "no...thing" if it's actually "some...thing"?
 
Then why did you call it "no...thing" if it's actually "some...thing"?
Because that's what it is [One thing of nothing].
 
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Because that's what it is [One thing of nothing].

Find another name for it, the word "nothing" is taken.
 
Find another name for it, the word "nothing" is taken.
Yes - it is taken by conceptual reality.
 
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Yes - it is taken by conceptual reality.

It is taken to be the word that doesn't refer to anything. Look it up. Find it's etymological roots (though I don't see why all this is necessary, since the word "nothing" is very obvious in its roots: "no" and "thing", ergo there cannot be a thing being referred to if one uses the term "nothing").
 
there cannot be a thing being referred to if one uses the term "nothing").
I'm not referring you to a thing - The reference is nothing.
 
Originally posted by UltraPi1
I'm not referring you to a thing - The reference is nothing.

Then why did you say "the 'thing of nothing'"?
 
Then why did you say "the 'thing of nothing'"?
Because that's what it is. I'm not trying to be funny here. It's just that it is funny.

Back to the circle.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
Your perspective is important here. Outside the sphere, inside the sphere, or the (concept) sphere itself. Which angle are you looking at?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
how about trying another way, if one states that if something
has existed then it is possible for other things to exist.
or if existence is imposible then existence cannot exist.
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
 
Last edited:
(Had 'nothing' to say, but made an error and had to correct it - WEIRD!)
 
Originally posted by UltraPi1
Because that's what it is. I'm not trying to be funny here. It's just that it is funny.

Listen, UltraPi1. It may be funny, but your being illogical. To be completely rational, you must choose: Is it something, or is it nothing?

If it is something, then it becomes irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of the word "nothing".

If it is nothing, then you can no longer refer to it as "a thing of nothing" since that is self-contradictory.

Back to the circle.
http://home.att.net/~jrabno9/minimum.jpg
Your perspective is important here. Outside the sphere, inside the sphere, or the (concept) sphere itself. Which angle are you looking at?

I still don't see the relevance of this illustration.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally posted by Messiah
(Had 'nothing' to say, but made an error and had to correct it - WEIRD!)

No need to use the scare-quotes in this case, Messiah. You really had nothing to say. As per E.i.N.S.--> "You didn't have anything to say".

Semantically equal, and perfectly logical.
 

Similar threads

Life is Eternal: How Something Can Come from Nothing
  • aeroboyo
  • · Replies 25 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
Graduate How can a universe come from nothing?
  • mattattack
  • · Replies 14 ·
  • Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology
Replies
14
Graduate How can anything cross the event horizon of a BH?
  • Fiziqs
  • · Replies 8 ·
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Graduate Do quantum fluctuations come from nothing ?
  • HamzahA
  • · Replies 23 ·
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
23
Undergrad E = mc^2, so how can anything have zero mass?
  • goldust
  • · Replies 8 ·
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
8
Where do ethics come from and how do they shape society?
  • Another God
  • · Replies 12 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
How Can the Philosophies of Great Physicists Guide Us Beyond the Standard Model?
  • brunoeinstein
  • · Replies 6 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
6