It's good that you ask this question separately as this is what I have been battling with in most of my responses to questions that directly or indirectly presuppose this. My own investigation of this issue suggests that 'Something' has always been without the notion of nothingness. I still insist that there has never been any causal or clarifying relation between the two. And since this is the case, none can give rise to the other. But the outstanding problem with there being something and something only is the problem of change. Something has a 'metaform' attached to change.......that is, the change of something from one form to another. This automatically raises the fundamental question as to whether something can take a permanent form.RAD4921 said:Where did the "material" universe come from? Did it come from the vacuum as current theory speculates? Was "material" always here? Why is there something instead of nothing?
Both statements are equivalent by the standards of logic. Saying that something has always existed, still does not answer the question of "Why has it always existed?" or "Why does eternity exist?" "Where did eternity come from?" In fact, by definition eternity comes from nothing.RAD4921 said:Did "something" come from "nothing" or has "something" always been here? Maybe "something" is composed of "nothing", if that is possible.
You guys need to study some physics. Ever heard of the Schwinger mechanism? It is also referred to as spontaneous pair production.dekoi said:Physically, something cannot come out of nothing.
Oh nonsense! First of all, the vacuum is hardly a vacuum. What we like to call the vacuum is simply how we project our inability to perceive what's there onto reality. It was a "vacuum" before someone supposed the Higgs field or dark energy, and perceived virtual particles or gravity waiting to constrict at the slightest presence of mass or acceleration . . . how exactly is that nothing?jnorman said:You guys need to study some physics. Ever heard of the Schwinger mechanism? It is also referred to as spontaneous pair production.
The QED vacuum is unstable in the presence of a strong electro-magnetic background field. Such a deformed vacuum state decays by emitting pairs of particles. This theoretical prediction of spontaneous particle creation was made many decades ago and is often referred to as the Schwinger Mechanism. Since then a variety of interesting aspects has been explored ranging from black hole quantum evaporation, to particle production in ultra-relativistic heavy ion collisions and in early universe physics.
I can't disagree with that, and it seems to be more or less the current scientific view, with the possible exception of the last sentence. I suppose the problem is in specifying exactly what you mean by 'illusion'. I take it to mean 'not fundamental', or 'epiphenomenal'. Perhaps the Buddhist idea of 'dependent existence' is relevant. Everything that science studies has only a dependent existence, and the more science we do the clearer this becomes.RAD4921 said:Time and space is an illusion. I know I have talked about this before but I will say it again. Time and space is an illusion. That means that the center of the universe is everywhere. You are the center of the universe and so is everyone else. Motion is an illusion as well. When walking down the street you are constantly walking into the center of the universe. How can you go anywhere? Locally yes, you are going somewhere but on a universal scale we never go anywhere. Time is a measurement of motion and if things never go “anywhere” then time too is an illusion. The universe is dimensionless. The universe is a circle who's center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere.