Start from Nothing: An Exploration of Pre BB Thinking

[wolram]

I know this idea scares a lot of you, but the fact is the universe either started from nothing , or it started from some thing, i state that nothing means the absence of any thing, so if one thinks that some thing can come from the absence of any thing seems illogical that leaves only one idea, that there has all ways been some thing, this may be pre BB thinking
but i think it is more logic, there has all ways been some thing, no thing can come from no thing.

 

[Math Is Hard]

You're in good company, Wolly. Quite a few people have worried over that problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#The_argument_from_contingency

 

[wolram]

The problem is the big guns do not have a clue and they resort to illogical solutions, a sort of cowardly devotion to what they know, but there can only be one conclusion and that is that (some thing has all ways existed), the BB may be an interval but not a beginning, when one follows that logic one can see that most of pre BB is cobblers.

 

[Meatbot]

I know this idea scares a lot of you, but the fact is the universe either started from nothing , or it started from some thing, i state that nothing means the absence of any thing, so if one thinks that some thing can come from the absence of any thing seems illogical that leaves only one idea, that there has all ways been some thing...

You have these as the options:

1. nothing causes something
2. something causes something (or something always existed without cause, but that's basically the same thing)

I can see another option:

3. "something" doesn't exist. The universe is really nothing so there is no need to worry about what caused it.

Of course, #3 contradicts all available evidence and makes no sense to me whatsoever. I agree with you that something has always existed (and it ain't God).

 

[wolram]

I doubt if cosmologists know if they have a burning ass or a cool one, i hope they will prove me wrong.

 

[jnorman]

why can't it be a zero-sum game? vacuum flux can "create" a particle pair out of "nothing". perhaps the universe is just an extremely large-scale version of this same concept.

 

[sLeeping_bEauti]

why can't it be a zero-sum game? vacuum flux can "create" a particle pair out of "nothing". perhaps the universe is just an extremely large-scale version of this same concept.

Yeah i heard of this somewhere and was going to mention it. What actually happens in this?

katii x

 

[sLeeping_bEauti]

I was watching something about Stephen Hawking last night all about how gravity originated from the big bang and there was a strange theory that they talked about right at the end of it which, weirdly, was the only thing that made a lot of sense to me.

They were talking about the universe being in 11 dimensions and is just one building block of something bigger, like dominos standing up. and the big bang happened because one of the 'dominos' fell into the other and there was a merge of something, i didnt fully get it but that was the gist.

 

[mgb_phys]

That is string theory - it's a little controversial among physicists because it doesn't actually predict anything (and therefore is not a theory) and the solution to each new measurement seems to be to add another dimension to account for it. So it becomes a theory with a separate term for each effect you want to include - which is the exact opposite of the simplisty that physicists like in universal laws.

 

[itsygo]

I agree with you that something has always existed (and it ain't God).

I think we should leave this as an 'open fact'. It's not reasonable to say that God does not exist. I hope you don't take this offensively. I am obviously not telling you to 'believe' in God.

Personally(or even scientifically), I don't think that nothingness can create something. Nothingness involves the implication of 'nothing'. Therefore, no result can come out of nothingness.

 

[wolram]

That is string theory - it's a little controversial among physicists because it doesn't actually predict anything (and therefore is not a theory) and the solution to each new measurement seems to be to add another dimension to account for it. So it becomes a theory with a separate term for each effect you want to include - which is the exact opposite of the simplisty that physicists like in universal laws.

It is some thing when Regan starts taking the water from ST, i wonder how long it will take for QL to be ridiculed, but these are totally ignorant comments.

 

[mgb_phys]

String theory is cool mathematics - I just said it's a open question if it is really science and if it has anything useful to say about cosmology.
I'm not an expert - I just like my physics to be experimentally testable.

 

[wolram]

String theory is cool mathematics - I just said it's a open question if it is really science and if it has anything useful to say about cosmology.
I'm not an expert - I just like my physics to be experimentally testable.

Experimentally testable seems to have gone out of the window, i thought that was the scientific method but it seems not.

 

[castlegates]

Nothing is a concept, and can only be expressed conceptually. This is to say that if the universe came from nothing ... the universe is a conceptual entity. I.E. A collection of related concepts.
Is a concept a thing?
If so - Then nothing is a thing, and the universe has always been.

If not - Then the universe had a beginning, and something came from nothing.

 

[my_wan]

why can't it be a zero-sum game? vacuum flux can "create" a particle pair out of "nothing". perhaps the universe is just an extremely large-scale version of this same concept.

Actually the same argument wolram used can be applied to a false vacuum also. Wolram, what you seem to fail to recognize is that at the fundamental level theoretical physics doesn't talk about things per se but rather symmetries. For instance we can talk about the symmetry of a coin toss. It is either heads or tails, never feet. It's the same symmetry that a computer bit has so symmetries are not specific to the parts that define them. Symmetries can in principle however predict the outcome of every conceivable experiment, assuming we know all the symmetries involved.

I doubt if cosmologists know if they have a burning ass or a cool one, i hope they will prove me wrong.

This is like saying that since a computer programmer has no idea how a capacitor is constructed they know nothing about programming. Some physicist and cosmologists don't like this either. However, unless or until some structural theory that provides for it and actually works and provides some predictive value rather than simple consistency with a subset of symmetries then there is no a priori reason to think the presumed structural components would even make sense to our way of thinking. It's a total waste of time to talk about ignorance or some pet theory in the meantime, unless of course you can actually deliver the goods. If that was the case I see the need for accusations of ignorance.

EDA: Correction: "I see "no" need for accusations of ignorance.

 

[Pippo]

I know this idea scares a lot of you, but the fact is the universe either started from nothing , or it started from some thing, i state that nothing means the absence of any thing, so if one thinks that some thing can come from the absence of any thing seems illogical that leaves only one idea, that there has all ways been some thing, this may be pre BB thinking
but i think it is more logic, there has all ways been some thing, no thing can come from no thing.

A watch can't be built from nothing, it is necessary the material and a watchmaker who is out of the watch. Nothing can come from nothing, unless it exists all along, and this seems to be the easier answer.

 

[Chronos]

I like the God idea. It appears the universe is finite in time [big bang, etal] and no alternative explanation conclusively rules out such an entity [a creator] so far as I know.

 

[Vast]

If the universe is eternal, the notion of a God seems superfluous.

 

[Pippo]

If the universe is eternal, the notion of a God seems superfluous.

God has no limits, He is eternal and He is over everything, eternal universe included.
We have to separate science and religion as science is very limited by our brains.
You can enlarge the science borders as you like, God will remains always
over/out of them. I can believe in God and in an eternal universe as well.

 

[DaveC426913]

Personally(or even scientifically), I don't think that nothingness can create something. Nothingness involves the implication of 'nothing'. Therefore, no result can come out of nothingness.

[ RANT ]
Wasn't it the ancient Greeks that thought the whole universe could be revealed by logic alone, that observation and experiment were needless details?

And wasn't that long LONG before the creation of the scientific method in the Renaissance? - where we discovered that, brilliant as the Greek philosophers were, they got that part COMPLETELY WRONG?

Why are we reverting to a method of discovery that's a half millenium out-of-date?

It is silly to "suppose" that something cannot come out of nothing. These are philosophical concepts! The only way to answers is to observe and collect empirical data.

But, since we can't currently (or likely, ever) do that for the beginning of the universe, that doesn't give us license to sudddenly hand-wave away things we "just don't think can happen" - such as something out of nothing.

So, to that theory I say: "If you can't show me evidence that something can't come out of nothing, then you can't claim it to be so."

[ /RANT ]

 

[mgb_phys]

When somebody said about QM that it was counter intuitive - <famous researcher> replied:
Yes because a 2m tall savanah dwelling ape will have evolved really good intuition about the behaviour of sub-atomic particles

 

[DaveC426913]

God has no limits, He is eternal and He is over everything, eternal universe included.
We have to separate science and religion as science is very limited by our brains.
You can enlarge the science borders as you like, God will remains always
over/out of them. I can believe in God and in an eternal universe as well.

We all have our beliefs. Unfortunately, beliefs are not subject to analysis or debate, so there's little point in having them as a subject of group discussion. The only things left to discuss are the things we can all observe and study.

 

[litewave]

Well, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, something can indeed come out of nothing. Actually it's happening all the time. At any precise point in time the energy is completely undefined. And where there is no definition, there is simply nothing.

Definition needs time. Energy becomes defined in time, and thus something comes out of nothing.

 

[wolram]

Well, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, something can indeed come out of nothing. Actually it's happening all the time. At any precise point in time the energy is completely undefined. And where there is no definition, there is simply nothing.

Definition needs time. Energy becomes defined in time, and thus something comes out of nothing.

I doubt anyone truly thinks that this to be the case, other wise there could not be an argument against a perpetual motion machine.

 

[friend]

I know this idea scares a lot of you, but the fact is the universe either started from nothing , or it started from some thing, i state that nothing means the absence of any thing, so if one thinks that some thing can come from the absence of any thing seems illogical that leaves only one idea, that there has all ways been some thing, this may be pre BB thinking
but i think it is more logic, there has all ways been some thing, no thing can come from no thing.

"Something from nothing"? Here we seem to be ignoring the details of what a something or a nothing is. Instead we are generalizing in the extreme. The word "something" is just a synonym for a proposition about physical entities; it describes some physical situation whose actual existence we can say is either true or false. And so nothing becomes the opposite of something just as false is the opposite of true.

So it seems what this question is really asking about is material implication of logic, otherwise known as a hypothesis. A hypothetical (or implication) is symbolized as A->B, which means if A is true (or exists), then B is true (or also must exist). So what you are asking is can there be a B (the frist instance of the existence of the universe) without an A (the cause of the first instance). And as far as hypotheticals are concerned, the answer is yes. A->B is a valid hypothetical (theory) even when B is true and A is false. The only invalid hypothetical is to have an A without a B; that indicates an invalid hypothetical (or theory).

 

[wolram]

"Something from nothing"? Here we seem to be ignoring the details of what a something or a nothing is. Instead we are generalizing in the extreme. The word "something" is just a synonym for a proposition about physical entities; it describes some physical situation whose actual existence we can say is either true or false. And so nothing becomes the opposite of something just as false is the opposite of true.

So it seems what this question is really asking about is material implication of logic, otherwise known as a hypothesis. A hypothetical (or implication) is symbolized as A->B, which means if A is true (or exists), then B is true (or also must exist). So what you are asking is can there be a B (the frist instance of the existence of the universe) without an A (the cause of the first instance). And as far as hypotheticals are concerned, the answer is yes. A->B is a valid hypothetical (theory) even when B is true and A is false. The only invalid hypothetical is to have an A without a B; that indicates an invalid hypothetical (or theory).

How can there be any detail to nothing?

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, something can indeed come out of nothing. Actually it's happening all the time.

To be accurate, something (such as virtual particles) can come out of hard vacuum - and while we conventionally consider vacuum to be nothing - in fact, vacuum is actually roiling with energy. It was frozen that way early in the universe's creation.

So, that's a poor analogy to the Big Bang. There's "nothing", and then there's Nothing.

 

[my_wan]

I doubt anyone truly thinks that this to be the case, other wise there could not be an argument against a perpetual motion machine.

Reminds me of claims that gravity can't exist in a vacuum. Nobody that understands the physics can doubt it. It is demonstrated with the Casimir effect and defines the so called zero-point energy. It is important in the development of nanotechnologies.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html

The notion of perpetual motion using virtual particles (zero point energy) is the idea behind lots of goofy science. It's similar to trying to extract energy out of the tiny temperature variations in the air in thermal equilibrium. It's Maxwell's demon all over again except in a vacuum this time. No you can't create a perpetual motion machine with it.

 

[litewave]

To be accurate, something (such as virtual particles) can come out of hard vacuum - and while we conventionally consider vacuum to be nothing - in fact, vacuum is actually roiling with energy. It was frozen that way early in the universe's creation.

I thought it was roiling with energy because there is constantly something springing out of nothing (and then vanishing back into nothing).

 

[wolram]

I thought it was roiling with energy because there is constantly something springing out of nothing (and then vanishing back into nothing).

That would be one neat trick, but it only suggests that there is a layer of potential energy that is as yet unavailable to us.

 

[Chronos]

So we agree there is no such thing as 'nothing'? - an oxymoron if ever I heard one. Nothing is the most abundant entity in the universe. Yet, 'nothing' is populated by a zoo of virtual particles.

 

[wolram]

Virtual particles are just another fudge factor between nothing and some thing, how can one have virtual nothing or virtual some thing, it is total nonsense, Nothing is the opposite of the possible existence of any thing, nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter, so may be one can envision a beginning from that?

 

[my_wan]

Virtual particles are just another fudge factor between nothing and some thing, how can one have virtual nothing or virtual some thing, it is total nonsense, Nothing is the opposite of the possible existence of any thing, nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter, so may be one can envision a beginning from that?

If "nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter" how does the something fit into it? Seems to me there is nowhere to put the something.

 

[wolram]

If "nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter" how does the something fit into it? Seems to me there is nowhere to put the something.

True.

 

[litewave]

That would be one neat trick, but it only suggests that there is a layer of potential energy that is as yet unavailable to us.

It seems so because we usually don't expect something to emerge from nothing. So we naturally imagine that there is a source that is something ("a layer of potential energy").

But if this source also produces space and time then it seems obvious that the source itself is neither in time nor in space. And Heisenberg's uncertainty principle says that within a length of time that approaches zero, the amount of energy becomes completely undefined (or within a length of space that approaches zero, momentum becomes completely undefined). So I guess that the source, which occupies no timespace, has completely undefined energy (and momentum). It's undefined, unanalyzable, indescribable. That's what we may call nothing. But someone might still call it something. It depends on what we understand as nothing or something. As far as I am concerned, nothing is what I experience when I'm unconscious - undefined, unanalyzable, indescribable.

Well, and out of the infinite possibilities contained in the undefined state some possibilities may prevail over others and thus the state becomes better defined and time and space necessarily emerge in which the definition happens. How or why that happens - the accentuation of certain possibilities - seems to have no answer because of the undefined nature of the original state.

 

[edjoyce]

Pre Big Bang

A previous writer stated

why can't it be a zero-sum game? vacuum flux can "create" a particle pair out of "nothing". perhaps the universe is just an extremely large-scale version of this same concept.

This begs a few questions

1. If the universe was created out of nothing in an outerverse and is a zero sum game does that entity still exist ?
2. Does that external entity/outerverse have an observable influence on our universe ?
3. What is the nature of the outerverse ie the scale and dimensions of it.
4. When was it created.

I propose some answers to these questions

1. I propose that the outerverse does still exist
2. I propose that the outerverse does have an observable influence on our universe in the following ways
a. It creates the phenomena of the non existent substance called dark matter. The expansion in the external outerverse means that the universe appears larger than it should and therefore less dense as a result missing matter is required mathmatically but that matter does not exist.
b. It creates two values for the Hubble constant one related to the age of the universe and the other related to its size.
These two are related one is double the other is cubed and therefore the proportion of missing to actual matter is 7 to 1.
3. The nature of the outerverse is that his has dimension but it does not have time. The dimension that it has include the elctromagnetic force. This can be seen from the work of Kaluza. I believe that work on sixth and higher dimensions would reveal some of the nature of the outerverse but that it would not have mass because mass and time are linked.
4. The outerverse does not have a time dimension and therefore does not have a creation point it is a timeless electromagnetic field.

I am not a physicist - I am a novelist and this is the basis for a novel that I am working on rather than a cosmological theroy - but I hope that some of this makes some sense.

 

[scarecrow]

0! = 1

Something from nothing. lol

 

[Pippo]

If "nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter" how does the something fit into it? Seems to me there is nowhere to put the something.

Something fit into the space that is something as well.

 

[my_wan]

If "nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter" how does the something fit into it? Seems to me there is nowhere to put the something.

True.

Yet that begs a question. If space-time (false vacuum) is made of something is empty space (true vacuum) a something or a nothing? How could empty space be a nothing if something can exist in it? How can empty space be a something if there is no time, no parts, no events, etc., of any kind? Do these parts have size? If so they must be made of more parts. If their size is zero how do you call it a part? Do these parts effect other parts from a distance? If so it seems they must send other parts to have an effect. If their size is zero how does another part with zero size have different properties?

The main issue here is not that Universe is made of nothing but that when you a priori require the ultimate constituents to be defined up front you are immediately mired in an ontological conundrum. If we limited ourselves in this way we would be stuck with a world full of Aristotelian thinkers, with very little actual technology or knowledge.

Fortunately we can do much better with a more pragmatic approach. We consider the results of experiments real and call it empirical data. We derive symmetries from the results of experiment and organize them in a higher order descriptions, called theories, from which we can make predictions to test with new experiments. Some people theorize about meta-theories, which are interpretations of theories. It is these meta-theories that people read about and often mistake it for the actual theory. Perhaps one day we will discover a theory of everything (TOE). Maybe a meta-TOE will provide us with a consistent definition of an ultimate something that makes intuitive sense to us, maybe not. It's not looking very likely at the moment, but I still think about it and hold out a little hope.

It remains absurd to assume scientist are delusional on the basis of failing to define the parts of a system to your satisfaction. Scientist are generally far more pragmatic. It is far more useful to provide tools and knowledge for our wealth, safety, and enjoyment than to provide you with the ultimate ontology of your liking. Few scientist really believe that everything is made of nothing. Yet so long as those parts are empirically and theoretically inaccessible it is absurd to talk about what they are. What they do is the primary question we ask. If you think you can do better go for it, else your ontological rants are without value.

 

[Phrak]

... the universe is a conceptual entity.

Hu, What?

Are you deliberately confusing the thing, A with the symbol for A? --the concept of A?

 

[wolram]

Yet that begs a question. If space-time (false vacuum) is made of something is empty space (true vacuum) a something or a nothing? How could empty space be a nothing if something can exist in it? How can empty space be a something if there is no time, no parts, no events, etc., of any kind? Do these parts have size? If so they must be made of more parts. If their size is zero how do you call it a part? Do these parts effect other parts from a distance? If so it seems they must send other parts to have an effect. If their size is zero how does another part with zero size have different properties?

The main issue here is not that Universe is made of nothing but that when you a priori require the ultimate constituents to be defined up front you are immediately mired in an ontological conundrum. If we limited ourselves in this way we would be stuck with a world full of Aristotelian thinkers, with very little actual technology or knowledge.

Fortunately we can do much better with a more pragmatic approach. We consider the results of experiments real and call it empirical data. We derive symmetries from the results of experiment and organize them in a higher order descriptions, called theories, from which we can make predictions to test with new experiments. Some people theorize about meta-theories, which are interpretations of theories. It is these meta-theories that people read about and often mistake it for the actual theory. Perhaps one day we will discover a theory of everything (TOE). Maybe a meta-TOE will provide us with a consistent definition of an ultimate something that makes intuitive sense to us, maybe not. It's not looking very likely at the moment, but I still think about it and hold out a little hope.

It remains absurd to assume scientist are delusional on the basis of failing to define the parts of a system to your satisfaction. Scientist are generally far more pragmatic. It is far more useful to provide tools and knowledge for our wealth, safety, and enjoyment than to provide you with the ultimate ontology of your liking. Few scientist really believe that everything is made of nothing. Yet so long as those parts are empirically and theoretically inaccessible it is absurd to talk about what they are. What they do is the primary question we ask. If you think you can do better go for it, else your ontological rants are without value.

May be your efforts are without value, in the end one has to admit to some base, a place to start from, without it any thing is possible, you call it a rant, i call it reality.

 

[my_wan]

May be your efforts are without value, in the end one has to admit to some base, a place to start from, without it any thing is possible, you call it a rant, i call it reality.

It would be untenable to assert that efforts to date are without value. Do you think this Earth could support the people it does today without our technology? Even your ability to post that claim here is dependent on said value. Our place to start from is the result of experiments, not the identity of the ultimate constituents of matter. Anything is not possible, the result of experiments again is what determines what is possible. Therefore, your claim that not predefining the hypothetical ultimate constituents does not lead to anything being possible.

I didn't call your opinion here a rant because I think that you are completely wrong about reality. I called it a rant because the ontologies you attach to something and nothing are ill defined and lack even basic designations suitable for the construction of physical theories. Perhaps if you are so sure you can define for us the physical properties of these parts?

You can start with:
1) What are their size if any and/or size range?
2) Are there forces or fields associated with these parts?
3) Do forces and fields have parts associated with them?
4) Are the parts for fields the same parts as the parts of matter?
5) How many different kind of parts are there?
Purely ontological issues:
6) Can space that contains nothing be considered something?
7) If empty space is something what properties can be defined without parts?
More difficult theoretical issues:
8) What role do infinities play, if any, in reality?
9) Is there an infinite hierarchy of parts?
10) Can spatial degrees of freedom be fully specified with 3 or 3+1 dimensions?

Any choice you make here will spawn more question and consequences. I can construct problematic versions of Special and General Relativity from various ethereal type assumptions so I will not rule it out a priori. Just don't come to me with demands that you must be on to something with your ethereal assumption based on some perceived ontological solution! However, answer these questions wolram and I will play this game for a limited time.

 

[castlegates]

Nothing is the opposite of the possible existence of any thing, nothing equals no space ,no time, no matter, so maybe one can envision a beginning from that?

Maybe you have this backwards so that, nothing makes it possible for things to exist, and maybe nothing equals, space, time, and matter, because if the universe came from nothing, it must necessarily be made of nothing. You give (nothing) no properties whatsoever, but fail to recognize that that is not possible. There must be at the very least (one) nothing from the onset, and that is a property tantamount to a fundamental building block.

I'll repeat this - A universe from nothing is a conceptual undertaking, wherein a universe from nothing must be conceptually represented. In other words: The universe is not to be understood as a physical entity, but a conceptual entity, ostensibly to be made of nothing out of absolute necessity.

 

[wolram]

If there is a vague consensus that there is no such thing as nothing would it make a difference?

 

[castlegates]

If there is a vague consensus that there is no such thing as nothing would it make a difference?

You only give an example that (nothing) cannot be defined, Yet it must be defined, if the universe came from nothing. (Nothing) has no meaning in the absence of a thing. In other words, you must use a thing to give meaning to (no) thing. So the definition of (nothing) is in part a (thing) I.E. A form with no thing, and that form is equal to (one).

If the universe came from nothing, it must necessarily be the definition of it, and that definition must be incomplete, for I agree with you that nothing is undefinable. This is to say that the universe is an ongoing definition process, by which it shall take forever to complete. A complete definition cannot exist in reality, only an incomplete one, and the universe is the representation, and a conceptual one at that.

 

[wolram]

You only give an example that (nothing) cannot be defined, Yet it must be defined, if the universe came from nothing. (Nothing) has no meaning in the absence of a thing. In other words, you must use a thing to give meaning to (no) thing. So the definition of (nothing) is in part a (thing) I.E. A form with no thing, and that form is equal to (one).

If the universe came from nothing, it must necessarily be the definition of it, and that definition must be incomplete, for I agree with you that nothing is undefinable. This is to say that the universe is an ongoing definition process, by which it shall take forever to complete. A complete definition cannot exist in reality, only an incomplete one, and the universe is the representation, and a conceptual one at that.

This is where i do not know if i have out thought you guys or not, may be it is best to go with the scientists and just play with what we have, but _________.

 

[castlegates]

This is where i do not know if i have out thought you guys or not, may be it is best to go with the scientists and just play with what we have, but _________.

I'm not inclined to think that the origin of the universe will be answered by scientific means. Most certainly not if the universe has always been, but with a universe from nothing, perhaps an explanation can be had through flawless logic, by which a belief can be fostered with a great deal of certainty as to it's veracity.

 

[Troponin]

Could energy create mass (something) as a necessity for its (energy) existence?
If Energy and mass are linked by E=mc2, then the non-existance of mass could create an infinite energy potential.
Infinite energy could create mass as a necessity of that infinite energy.

Sorry about the philosophy laden first post...its not a good representation of my typical thoughts. lol

 

[my_wan]

Could energy create mass (something) as a necessity for its (energy) existence?
If Energy and mass are linked by E=mc2, then the non-existance of mass could create an infinite energy potential.
Infinite energy could create mass as a necessity of that infinite energy.

Sorry about the philosophy laden first post...its not a good representation of my typical thoughts. lol

Actually your thinking here is roughly related to some very real problems in physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy#Gravitation_and_cosmology

Welcome to the forum Troponin.

 

[my_wan]

If there is a vague consensus that there is no such thing as nothing would it make a difference?

We judge theories to a large degree on consensus but consensus does not give us a good starting point on which to construct a theory. You did say "if" but this is further hampered by the fact that no such consensus.

This is where i do not know if i have out thought you guys or not, may be it is best to go with the scientists and just play with what we have, but _________.

I for one take your issues with some degree of seriousness and attempt to fill your "but _________" with something useful occasionally. Perhaps you are at least getting an understanding of why we can't waste our time demanding that it must be so. We simply don't know, yet we must not let that prevent us from learning more about nature the way ancient thinkers did.