[Bill S (OP)]

What follows may have an ominous look of familiarity about it, but please be patient.  As I said in another thread, it is a last attempt to get my ideas straight.

Acknowledging that any necessary modification or explanation can come later; could I ask to start with yes/no answers to a couple of questions?  I’ll set a good example by giving my own answers, and, of course, being prepared to defend them later.

1.  In our perceived 4+1 dimensional Universe, is it possible to formulate a “working” concept of infinity/eternity beyond a mathematical infinity?     Yes.

2.  Given that there is something, can there ever have been (absolutely) nothing?   No.

[Bill S (OP)]

Already I see a possible sticking point.  What do I mean by a “working” concept?

I mean no more than a concept which can be used in a rational way, without recourse to philosophy or theology.

[jeffreyH]

1. Don't know.
2. Don't know.

[Bill S (OP)]

Too much Heisenberg makes you uncertain  - I think. 

[alancalverd]

This is the kind of argument that makes mathematicians and philosophers pull their hair out, but from the standpoint of a mere  physicist-cum-engineer, there are as many kinds of infinity as you need to do the job or explain why it can't be done.

AFAIK the most distant observable object is about 13.5 Gly away, roughly the Schwarzchild radius of all the mass inside that sphere, but I can't think of any reason why there shouldn't be stuff outside the event horizon, nor why there should be a limit to the amount or radius of stuff we can't observe. Now the gravitational sucking of this infinite exauniverse neatly describes the expansion of the observable one, and if bits from the edge of the observable universe disappear over the horizon, there's no reason why they shouldn't coalesce in the exaverse to form new galaxies etc.

At the other end of the scale we can leap from practical infinitesimals to quantum finities depending on whether we are trying to describe the motion of ambient air over a wing or the speed of a single molecule in a "vacuum" chamber.

[Bill S (OP)]

Thanks Alan.  I have difficulty imagining you as a "mere" anything.

That's the sort of post I was hoping would come a bit later.  It neatly side-steps answers to the questions, which are, I think, essential to any promise of progress, especially Q2.

[alancalverd]

I think the implication is that there was never nothing.  IIRC, Hawking's "Black Holes And Baby Universes" hinted at the same notion of pseudocyclic local creation and extinction within a much bigger space than can be observed from any point within it.

"Mere" - Old English (that's me) - a stagnant bog. Ipsi dixit.

[Bill S (OP)]

Still not committing yourself, Alan.  How about sticking your neck out (of the mere) and saying what you think?

Seriously, I'm just looking for opinions, at this stage. I may not always agree with you, but I value your opinion, especially as I know you will defend it.

There are others whose opinions I value, and I hope they will contribute soon.

[jeffreyH]

We won't ever know if there was ever nothing. We can assume that there wasn't ever nothing but that is by choice.

I have no idea what a working concept of infinity would be. Define working.

[Bill S (OP)]

We won't ever know if there was ever nothing. We can assume that there wasn't ever nothing but that is by choice.

Has anyone demonstrated a mechanism by which something can emerge from nothing?

I have no idea what a working concept of infinity would be. Define working.

It may not be a definition, as such, but I did say what I meant, at this stage. 

I mean no more than a concept which can be used in a rational way, without recourse to philosophy or theology.

[jeffreyH]

Position and momentum are continuous functions. A displacement in coordinates is not thought to be quantised. Yet Zeno's paradox suggests that this may not be true at the Planck scale. Is this where nothing exists? In quantum jumps?

[mrsmith2211]

Infinity and nothingness inhabit the same space. We can theoretically define both but conceive of neither.
So what is infinity plus 1, or nothingness -1?

[jeffreyH]

Infinity and nothingness inhabit the same space. We can theoretically define both but conceive of neither.
So what is infinity plus 1, or nothingness -1?

If we represent nothingness by zero then minus one is actually something. Since you have moved away from nothing. If we define everything in terms of energy then there may be nothing in the universe.

[Bill S (OP)]

Is this where nothing exists? In quantum jumps?

To resurrect the famous McEnroe quote: "You cannot be serious!" 

In order to have quantum jumps, you have to have something jumping.

[Bill S (OP)]

If we represent nothingness by zero then minus one is actually something. Since you have moved away from nothing.

This is an example of how mathematics can sometimes be unhelpful if not used with care.  Mathematically, zero may be defined as nothing, but in order to make that definition, or even to conceive of zero, a mind has to exist; and that is something.  Must there not be a difference between mathematical "nothing" and physical "nothing"?

If we define everything in terms of energy then there may be nothing in the universe.

Is that because the net energy may be zero? 

Doesn't that require that +ve and -ve energy be present in order to achieve the net balance?

[guest4091]

1.  In our perceived 4+1 dimensional Universe, is it possible to formulate a “working” concept of infinity/eternity beyond a mathematical infinity?     Yes.

2.  Given that there is something, can there ever have been (absolutely) nothing?   No

No and No.

[guest4091]

Infinite is an idea related to measurement.
Infinity is not a number since it has no value. It is a relation about numbers stating there is no limit to a magnitude. A common example is the set of integers. The set has a beginning but is 'open ended/without limit/unbounded', but NOT infinite.
Another instance of the meaningless term is found in the definition of a limit, such as:
the limit of (some sequence of n terms), as n approaches infinity, = u. By definition the sequence can never equal the limit u, because if it did, the statement would be false!
Then there's the question of, how do you ‘approach infinity'?  At night, on your tip toes, or maybe while it's sleeping?
It's a contradiction in terms. You can't ‘approach infinity' anymore than you can approach the horizon, or the carrot on the stick.
So much for rigorous or precise definitions.
Since mathematics is a language, it’s subject to the same limitations as any language. The terms are by definition, and those definitions are in terms of other definitions, etc. The ultimate reality is, there are no fundamental independent definitions. They are circular or accepted without proof, i.e. postulates/axioms. 
Couple this with the fact that human experience has no provable examples of anything without end. Despite the mind being one of the most complex organisms known, it has a tendency to naively conceptualize and oversimplify to obtain a first approximation or preliminary grasp of an idea.
How many times have we heard, “it’s more complicated than we originally thought”, when experience doesn't agree with prediction.

[jeffreyH]

Is this where nothing exists? In quantum jumps?

To resurrect the famous McEnroe quote: "You cannot be serious!" 

In order to have quantum jumps, you have to have something jumping.

I saw chalk dust! Damn it!

[Bill S (OP)]

I saw chalk dust! Damn it!

And chalk dust is something.  Mc is with me, I shall not want, or should that be "found wanting"? 

[Bill S (OP)]

Infinity and nothingness inhabit the same space.

This is an example of how our language makes it difficult to talk about infinity or nothingness without letting in the pedants, who say things like “space is something, and we know of no infinite space”. 

We can theoretically define both but conceive of neither.

Are you going to go for a definition of either?