« on: Today at 12:43:44 »
If it is 'from' a nothing, then 'nothing' is something not part of the universe, which contradicts the premise that the universe is everything. So no, not 'from nothing', but also also no, I'm not defining the universe as everything that exists.QuoteSuppose the universe is everything that exists and it begins at the big bang.From nothing?
Alan sums it up:OK, but the word loses much meaning given such a narrow definition. The set of integers contains nothing, because it lacks physical objects. How long before it's my turn? Nothing, because there's perhaps an hour, but that's not a physical object.
Quote from: AlanIf you define "nothing" as an absence of physical objects, it cannot be one. And there is no other meaningful definition.
Archangel put it equally succinctly:
Quote from: Archangel
The Universe cannot come from nothing. There is nothing in experimental physics showing that the contrary is possible. It would imply magic...[/quote]
I agree that the universe did not come from nothing. Particles in physics do appear without cause, so I cannot agree with that part. Hawking radiation is such an example.
Changing the definition to prove your point is demagoguery.And assuming the answers to prove your point is begging.
My approach has been to use mathematics to analyse the problem, so that it can be studied more formally with known terms.