Is there a theory regarding the emergence of something from nothing that addresses this particular issue: How can something arise from absolutely nothing when absolute nothingness implies the absence of any mechanism by which something can arise?
I’m not sure what you really want to know. Is this related to theology or to physics? You might try doing a Google search for creatio ex nihilo (“creation out of nothing”, a Latin phrase used in theology) along with other relevant terms (theology, cosmogony, “big bang”, “vacuum fluctuation”, etc., depending on exactly what you want to know about).
There is this theory:
Bibliophage:
Physics. From what I can find, there is a theory, called “The Theory of Nothing”, that at the quantum level, particles arise out of “nothing”. My question is not about the theory per se, but about how the theory is reconciled with the absence of any mechanism to cause a particle to arise, since the presence of a mechanism would mean it isn’t nothing. I have searched as thoroughly as I know how. The hits I get mention things like anti-quarks and hadrons, quantum chromodynamics, and unreferenced statements like, “Quantum theory allows the creation of complementary particles from nothing, provided they recombine and decay almost instantly.” But without any grounding to speak of in quantum physics, I can’t exactly just look it up in a dictionary. And nothing I’ve seen yet addresses the question I’ve asked here.
I think the problem here is mainly semantic, in that the “nothing” being discussed may be “nothing” in the conventional sense, but is “something” in a quantum sense.
This site describes it this way:
I hope that’s perfectly clear? 
Actually, I guess that does help. If nothing else, it means that there is no implication to be drawn from the Theory of Nothing that makes a supernatural explanation of cosmological origins unnecessary, despite any claims to the contrary.
I think the OP gets into the question of whether the laws of physics are pre-existent to the physical universe itself. There are two contending schools of thought on this subject. One is that the laws of physics (and mathematics, which may be the same thing) exist in some eternal, archtypical sense beyond the existence of space, time, or matter and energy. The other school says that the “laws” of physics are just how the material universe behaves, and so you can’t speak of the laws existing before the universe began.
Are you sure you meant to say that there is a school of thought claiming that the laws of physics apply to things that are not physical? If so, how broadly are their views represented in the general physics community?
Okay, I’ve read that sentence a couple of times, and I’m still trying to parse it. If I follow it correctly, you are saying that the explanation Colibri posted does not imply that the supernatural is unnecessary. I actually think the opposite. Since the “nothing” is really something, there is no supernatural explanation necessary. This doesn’t rule out a supernatural element, but it does allow for the absence of the supernatural.
I don’t think that’s quite what Lumpy was saying. It’s sort of a question of whether the laws of physics are prescriptive or descriptive. In other words, does the physical universe behave the way it does because of the laws of physics, or do the law of physics describe the way the universe behaves.
Colibri’s explanation doesn’t allow that the universe arose from nothing, at least not nothing in the sense of absolutely nothing. I thought I understood him to say that physicists use the word in the sense of almost, but not exactly, nothing. Again, nothing would imply no mechanism for creation.
But thanks for clearing up the two schools of thought. “Prescriptive laws of physics” seems supernatural as well — because of the “pre”.
…if you wanna be with me
How Seinfeldian. A thread about nothing.
Oops, sorry JillGat… Did I break a rule?
Only if you don’t have something, Lib.
Jill, I’m not trying to be your hero.
Universe within another thing is only Demiverse. Either the limits of existence encompass all, or limits do not exist. Existence without limit necessarily falls outside of logic, science, mathematics, magic, or any other ontological construct. If a thing cannot be, then, as defined, it is not. Language has not evolved to allow the definition of nothing to include characteristics. I am not sure that such a linguistic construct could have value in a logical sense.
Before the beginning cannot be meaningful if there is a true origin to time. Outside of time is simply another version of a container for the Universe. It is decidedly possible that all we can ever perceive, (and all that can ever interact with what we can perceive,) are an incomplete subset of the Universe. If there is such an incongruence to reality, its nature is entirely moot, in any practical sense.
So, to imply a character to nothing, or a potential, simply assumes the acceptance of a new definition of nothing. To place that new definition outside of the universe continues the process of redefinition. At that point any contention is supportable, since no referent can be applied from systems having different axiom bases. Most rhetorical adversaries will opt out of the discussion. Those who continue are free to use the new logic of determination of truth in refutation. Ticket sales will be the only quantifiable measure of success.
Tris
There seems to an implication here that the universe was never created from nothing, only from a different kind of something. Isn’t this the same as saying that the universe has always been here with no point of origin? If the Big Bang was just the stabilisation of some sort of chaotic state, it can’t really be said to be the beginning of the universe. Seems to me we’re going into ‘turtles all the way down’ territory.
(I may have just said something very similar to Triskadecamus’ last post but he used lots of big words so it’s hard to tell. ;))
A last desperate appeal… Chronos?
This was discussed in this GB: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=63974&pagenumber=2
The “vacuum” of outer space has virtual particles coming into existence constantly, due to quantuum mechanics, particles that exist for only very short periods.
It was posited that virtual particles may not annihilate themselves in extreme environments, which is the basis for Hawking’s radiation and a possible mechanism for the creation of the Universe out of nothing.
I just wanted to let y’all know that I’ve gotten a greater understanding of nothing from reading this thread.