How would you know if they didn’t?
Sneezed by the Great Green Arkleseizure, wasn’t it?
Yes but “space” that has virtual particles is a framework. It’s not nothing. Why would it ever exist?
This is one of the true impossibilities about existence. From the way we see the universe, there’s a framework of space out there. But how can it ever exist?
There should be nothing. No universe, no space, nothing at all. Because in order for there to be *something *there had to be something *first *to create that something. Which is impossible.
Basically in true emptiness - nothing at all, no space, no time, no matter, no energy - nothing can ever exist. And if something exists to allow all the rest of the things to exist, how did it get created.
And no, incoherent tribal beliefs from thousands of years ago don’t explain jack towards this problem. Bringing in complex deities who care about your sex life in no way simplifies the issue.
Your question is far too presumptuous and speculative.
Before you get to a “how” you have to establish whether a thing has actually occurred.
I can certainly ask you “how did I manage to score seven successive 9-dart 501 finishes?” but you will quite rightly ask me to first show that I did indeed do that.
Well we definitely have a “something” now. And from our understanding of things, something can’t come from nothing. And we have something but there couldn’t have always been this specific something, that doesn’t make any sense. How does a cosmos where there always is space-time come to exist?
I mean I sorta get your point but the fact you can read the message I wrote proves the event of creation did somehow occur.
Well, I guess that tells us everything we need to know. We can just close up all research into cosmology now that we have the real answer. Orrr, you could explain how this hypothetical entity did this.
…but the devil is in the details.
Why? Why could it not have always existed?
Why do so many people have no problem with time going off forever in one direction, but not the opposite direction?
Well this does seem to be the case but it still begs how this could be.
We imagine the default state of existence to be nothing. Instead it’s almost like the default state of existence is “everything”.
I do not imagine nothing to be the default state of existence, because nothing is non-existence. I mostly do not imagine nothing, except that I know that “Nothing is Greater than God”, so, I believe in the greater thing.
I’m pretty sure I do the opposite of that.
Well, no. That is not our understanding. We have no idea whether something can or can not truly come from nothing. It may even be a question that makes no sense as the laws of the universe as we know it may break down at the point of singularity.
This line of reasoning (having a point of caused creation) is one that the religious are fond of peddling but it is of no use at all as an answer. If a cause is needed for everything then something caused creation but by the rules of that argument that creator must also have been created. It sets up an infinite regress which can only be solved with resort to special pleading. Fine, but note that having a simple proto-universe that came from nothing or has always existed is a far simpler solution than a guiding, complex intelligence which came from nothing or has always existed.
I addressed this above and agree with you. It’s just the concept of, well, if the physical laws “outside” what we can see really allow something to come from nothing it still is a bit nonsensical.
Which God? Rama? Odin? Zeus? The Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Sure as hell wasn’t the typical western god, because that creation story is totally wrong.
Assuming its even linear from any perspective but ours.
The froth of virtual particles is sub-atomic. There is no space it is not in.
This is what scientists are now saying is completely wrong. Earlier visions of the world always included a “nothing” and then declared than something could not emerge from nothing. But “nothing” appears to be impossible, a ill-defined concept that has no physical reality. There is always “something” and therefore no paradoxes about something emerging from it can occur.
If your assumptions are wrong then no solid foundations can be built on them. Stop assuming “nothing” exists and then everything changes.
Bottom line: throw “nothing” out of your vocabulary. It’s the use of “nothing” that’s nonsensical.
“I have no need for that hypothesis.”
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
I would argue that this has to be qualified with some context. “Nothingness” is impossible under the physical laws of the universe as we understand them because quantum uncertainty leads to the hypothesis of random quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. But this is clearly a specific property of space itself, which also exhibits other properties like time and the relativistic effects of spatial separation, and space and its physical laws only began to come into being at the Big Bang. The virtual-particle idea is only an analogy to the BB singularity, which in our terms of reference really did arise from nothing. Alternatively, under Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal (the Hartle-Hawking model), the BB did not “arise” at all, but is a steady state in “imaginary time”. Either one leads to the same philosophical quandary that is outside the realm of the known physical laws of the universe.