Thanks, I don’t mean to seem ungrateful, but I’m not talking about vacuum. Vacuum is something. I’m talking about nothing. I think Colibri hit it when he quoted, “When physicists say ‘nothing’ they are being playful with the [English] language…” There cannot be any mechanism that would have created the universe out of nothing because nothingness implies the absence of anything at all, including mechanisms.
It appears that, by default, my question is answered. There is no natural mechanism by which something may be created out of nothing. A mod may now close this thread (not that they couldn’t have anyway).
Has “nothing” ever existed? If there was once nothing, not even a God, nothing could have arisen. Hence, there must have been something: either God or a vacuum. Take your pick.
Physics. Not theology. I already understood the theological definition of nothing. In this thread, I learned the physics definition. It is plausible that God precedes the vacuum, but not that nothing preceded the vacuum (for the reasons previously discussed). Physics can’t choose God because the supernatural is outside the scope of physics, so it must choose vacuum. But it is up to physics to show, beyond speculation, that the vacuum is eternal.
Why does physics have the burden of proof? Theology posits a God, which is eternal. Physics posits a vacuum, which is eternal. These are both affirmative statements, so which has the burden of proof? And why?
Each has its own burden, but here the question is about physics.
If someone can come in here and answer the question in the Opening Post affirmatively, then the burden on physics is removed. Until then, it has the burden to show that its vacuum is eternal, since there are no mechanisms (as far as physics is concerned) outside it. I’m not sure what eternity means in physics. It might use the term “eternity” in a novel way, like it uses the term “nothing”.
There is nothing wrong, per se, with defining terms in a specialized way. All disciplines do this. “Force” in physics has a different meaning from “force” in ethics, for example. But redefinition does not remove proof burden. If it did, physicists could claim that they have made pigs fly by redefining “fly” to mean “wallow in mud”.
Libertarian, you will just get involved in semantic arguements on this one.
There may not be any words in English, or in any other human language, to describe “what” “existed” “before” the Big Bang. (I use quotations to indicate terms that may not be definable linguistically.)
Physicists may use mathematics to express conditions “before” the big bang, and the equations may simply not have any meaning in English.
Don’t ask me. So far as I know, there’s no scientific answer, nor even attempts at a scientific answer, to your question. Let me know what you want done with this thread, Lib… I’d be happy to move it over to GD so you’uns can get on with the philosophy of it, or I can leave it here and probably die on its own, or I can speed up the process and close it. Just say the word.
Thanks, Chronos. You provided the answer. After I’ve given its implications some thought, I’ll open a debate thread myself. You can just let this one die since that is probably easiest for you.
Thank you, too, Colibri. Your insights have been helpful. I also have been interested in a debate about science and language, and the importance of expository skills for scientists.