[Bill S]

unlike History (where dates matter) there are no wrong answers in a PPE exam.

Now I know how I passed A Level Sociology, with the best mark at that Centre, in spite of making up my answers as I went along.  I even made up quotes from obscure non-existent American studies.

[Bill S]

I wonder if this thread is meandering towards the sort of inconclusive “death” that often seems to befall long, drifting threads.  If that is the case, I would like to acknowledge the fact that there is a lot of thought-provoking material in it; and to thank those who have been patient with my apparent intransigence; especially Halc and Alan, who have born the brunt.

The thread deserves a summary.  I don’t have time for that, but will try to make some sort of link between the current position and the OP.

[alancalverd]

I even made up quotes from obscure non-existent American studies.

Congratulations!

If you don't already know about it, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair is a good summary of a famous spoof. It also invokes the concept of "postmodern philosophy". Now if "modern" means "now", "postmodern" must mean "tomorrow"/. Isn't this what us humans call science fiction?

I think we are making progress! The expansion of the universe is due to philosophers filling all the empty spaces with bullshit.

[Bill S]

This is not an attempted summary, but as we seem to have drifted into a discussion of “nothing” it might be worth seeing how that links back to the OP.

Since “nothing” is just that - nothing; it cannot be said to exist in any way or form. 
If “nothing” cannot exist, it follows that there must always have been “something”.
If we consider our Universe to be everything that exists; the Big Bang cannot have been the beginning of the Universe. 
If our universe started with the Big Bang, it cannot be all there is.  Something must have preceded it.
A common way round this is to multiply the definitions of the universe.  This can work, but tends to lead to misunderstanding. 
Using Gribbin’s distinction between cosmos and Universe seems unpopular, but is one way of avoiding “crossed wires”.
Whatever terminology one uses, there must always have been something, or there would be no Universe now.

Does this answer the OP’s question?  Only Akabiz can answer that, but where is Akabiz? 

[Halc]

Since “nothing” is just that - nothing; it cannot be said to exist in any way or form. 
If “nothing” cannot exist, it follows that there must always have been “something”.

This seems like a serious set of logical errors.
If a bucket contains nothing, then nothing exists in the bucket. Nothing existing means 'lack of something being in there', not 'there's something there, and that thing is a nothing'.
It is the equivalent of a set of things that 'exist' being an empty set.  There is nothing in logic that says that there is some sort of contradiction in that set being empty.  Thus it does not follow that 1) the set must be nonempty and 2) that the set suddenly has temporal properties with members that change over time.  You've changed the set from 'that which exists' to the set of 'that which currently exists', which is an invalid transformation.

If we consider our Universe to be everything that exists;

Circular.  Then you cannot say the universe exists.  The universe, if it exists, is a member of [everything that exists].  That's a better statement.  'Universe' is a member, and 'cosmos' (by your earlier definition) is either the set or the entire contents of the set, which may or may not be empty.

If our universe started with the Big Bang, it cannot be all there is.  Something must have preceded it.

The universe appears to be an object within a larger structure, yes.  Hence it was likely 'caused' in a manner of speaking, yes.  I agree with this, but it does not follow that time (the time in which the universe was created, not the time contained by it) is either finite or infinite in either direction.  I don't think the distinction matters, because even with infinite past, the question of why the [set of things that exist] is non-empty hasn't been resolved.  Playing games with finite/infinite time is merely in pursuit of why something might be a member of the set of things which currently exist, and I don't care about that since it presumes time exists and thus begs an answer to the former question.

Does this answer the OP’s question?  Only Akabiz can answer that, but where is Akabiz? 

Akabiz is gone, a 1-post wonder.  He was asking a different question which is why I didn't bother answering.  He just pointed out evidence of objects with an apparent age older than the time since the BB, which is rightly a contradiction that needs resolution.

[Bill S]

Since “nothing” is just that - nothing; it cannot be said to exist in any way or form.
If “nothing” cannot exist, it follows that there must always have been “something”.

This seems like a serious set of logical errors.
If a bucket contains nothing, then nothing exists in the bucket.

We are back to juggling with the meaning of nothing.  Isn’t a bucket something?

Nothing existing means 'lack of something being in there', not 'there's something there, and that thing is a nothing'.

How do you equate that with “If a bucket contains nothing, then nothing exists in the bucket”?

It is the equivalent of a set of things that 'exist' being an empty set.  There is nothing in logic that says that there is some sort of contradiction in that set being empty.  Thus it does not follow that 1) the set must be nonempty and 2) that the set suddenly has temporal properties with members that change over time.  You've changed the set from 'that which exists' to the set of 'that which currently exists', which is an invalid transformation.

I’m talking about “nothing”, you seem to be talking about sets.  Are sets “nothing” or are we talking about completely different things?

If we consider our Universe to be everything that exists;

Perhaps, if you put that quote back in context, your response might be different.

If our universe started with the Big Bang, it cannot be all there is.  Something must have preceded it.

I agree with this, but it does not follow that time (the time in which the universe was created, not the time contained by it) is either finite or infinite in either direction.

Where did I mention finite or infinite time?

I don't think the distinction matters, because even with infinite past, the question of why the [set of things that exist] is non-empty hasn't been resolved.

Could it be that we need to distinguish between “a set containing nothing”, which may or may not exist, and (absolutely) nothing, which would not involve sets of anything?

Playing games with finite/infinite time is merely in pursuit of why something might be a member of the set of things which currently exist, and I don't care about that since it presumes time exists and thus begs an answer to the former question.

I’m willing to accept that I may have said something unintentional, but I have serious problems with the concept of “infinite time”, so I need to know what I might have said to give the impression I was “playing games” with it.

[Halc]

We are back to juggling with the meaning of nothing.  Isn’t a bucket something?

Yes, but I didn't say the bucket was nothing, just that there was nothing in it, or rather (by my definition below), it doesn't contain anything.  Importantly, I didn't assert the bucket existed or didn't exist.  The words have no meaning to me either way, so I didn't say them.

Nothing existing means 'lack of something being in there', not 'there's something there, and that thing is a nothing'.

How do you equate that with “If a bucket contains nothing, then nothing exists in the bucket”?

The bucket lacks any contents, so a list of what exists in the bucket is empty.

I’m talking about “nothing”, you seem to be talking about sets.

I'm talking about 'nothing' equating to an empty set.  You seem to hold an assumption that certain things have the property of 'exists', so I'm formally expressing that concept in set notation saying that these things are members of a set of all things that have this property.  That makes it a relation, allowing us to speak the same language, since I only see existence as a relation, not a property.

Are sets “nothing” or are we talking about completely different things?

No.  For instance, in the set of integers, there is nothing between 5 and 6. I suppose that could be a set of all integers between 5 and 6 if you want to word it that way.

If we consider our Universe to be everything that exists;

Perhaps, if you put that quote back in context, your response might be different.

OK.  You said "If we consider our Universe to be everything that exists; the Big Bang cannot have been the beginning of the Universe."
I don't think that follows. Suppose the universe is everything that exists and it begins at the big bang.  It is bounded in the temporal direction at that one moment.  What's inconsistent about that?  I don't think it's the case, but I cannot prove it's not the case, but your statement above indicates that it not being the case is impossible or contradictory or something.  For that matter, I cannot prove the universe didn't begin last Tuesday. For the same reasons one might argue the latter point, your statement above doesn't seem to follow.

If our universe started with the Big Bang, it cannot be all there is.  Something must have preceded it.

Where did I mention finite or infinite time?

In many posts in this thread's history, recently in discussion of definition of eternity.

Could it be that we need to distinguish between “a set containing nothing”, which may or may not exist, and (absolutely) nothing, which would not involve sets of anything?

Well, I didn't say the {set of all things that exist} contains itself.  I find 'a set not containing anything' more clearly worded than 'a set containing nothing', but they mean the same thing.
Absolute nothing just means the set of all things that exist is empty, and definitely doesn't include itself. How would you prove that that isn't the case? An object with the property of existence would need to behave empirically different than the same object without that property, else there's no empirical distinction. I argue the lack of that distinction. Existence is thus not a scientific property, but it is a scientific relation: I can distinguish an empty bucket from one in which an apple exists. The apple has a relation of 'existing in' with the bucket.

I have serious problems with the concept of “infinite time”, so I need to know what I might have said to give the impression I was “playing games” with it.

As I was trying to say, my argument above does not hinge on time, finite or not.  I consider the discussion a diversion, which is part of why stopped posting while I thought the discussion was on an irrelevant track.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Nothing is not something, therefore it does not exist. In physics, space is not nothing but rather something. Space must be included in a good cosmological model. Physicists using the word 'nothing' to mean 'something' are fools. Usually, they have made a mistake and they don't want to admit it. Changing the definition to prove your point is demagoguery. It is the same for people who admit there is no freewill but add their own definition of it to promote their point of view. From a scientific point of view, they are wrong from the beginning.

Personally, I think you need more than space to form a universe. The Universe cannot come from nothing. There is nothing in experimental physics showing that the contrary is possible. It would imply magic...

[Bill S]

Are sets “nothing”

No.

So, in talking about sets, whether they contain anything, or not, you are not talking about nothing.

  Suppose the universe is everything that exists and it begins at the big bang.

From nothing?

[Bill S]

Alan sums it up:
 

If 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:
 

  The Universe cannot come from nothing. There is nothing in experimental physics showing that the contrary is possible. It would imply magic...

Changing the definition to prove your point is demagoguery.

Possibly, enough said. 

[Halc]

Suppose the universe is everything that exists and it begins at the big bang.

From nothing?

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.

Alan sums it up:
 

If you define "nothing"  as an absence of physical objects, it cannot be one. And there is no other meaningful definition.

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.

Archangel put it equally succinctly:
 

  The Universe cannot come from nothing. There is nothing in experimental physics showing that the contrary is possible. It would imply magic...

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.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Halc, I was not talking about you but physicists who debated about a universe from nothing.  This is probably where you got the idea.

Particles do not appear without a cause. This is an interpretation, not a fact. Look for the 'measurement problem' in QM. We know that the measurement must influence the outcome of a measurement but QM is blind on this subject. This leads to an easy explanation for randomness: you need a theoretical mechanism for the measurement process and you need the wave function of a sufficient causal part of the universe to collapse the randomness. For example, if you take only two particles in your experiment, you minimize your knowledge about the particles because you neglect all other relations of the ensemble. It is like sending a rocket to Mars while neglecting the influence of the Moon, the Sun and all the rest of the Universe. For the measurement problem, this leads to mixed states with no pure states of entanglement. What it means is the measurement of a single particle is maximally influenced by the measurement and what is measured is a mixture of the entanglement of the particle with the detector and with the rest of the Universe. This is how randomness appears in experiments at a particle scale and why we can predict with high confidence the trajectory of a space probe...

You must take account of all important causal relations to have a power of prediction.

Here, Universe with a capital 'U' means everything.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Science is based on reality. A scientific who denies reality is like a marathon runner who shoot himself in the foot at the start of the race...

[Halc]

Particles do not appear without a cause. This is an interpretation, not a fact.

Just so.  Such interpretations support actions now causing effects in the past, and I find that more offensive than events without cause, so I personally choose different interpretations, but as you say, not fact.
So being interpretational, it is not invalid to posit something from nothing, since interpretations that allow it are not invalid.  Again, I'm not personally suggesting the universe came from nothing.

Look for the 'measurement problem' in QM. We know that the measurement must influence the outcome of a measurement but QM is blind on this subject. This leads to an easy explanation for randomness: you need a theoretical mechanism for the measurement process and you need the wave function of a sufficient causal part of the universe to collapse the randomness.

Maybe you need these things.  There are interpretations with randomness and others without. There are ones with collapse and other without.  I suppose one must select an interpretation before making descriptions based on the interpretation, and then the descriptions are only relevant to the selected interpretation.  That's what I'm trying to do.  Pick an interpretation that solves the whole problem under discussion.

Here, Universe with a capital 'U' means everything.

I still find the term 'everything' to be loosely defined.  Not sure what somebody else might mean by that. It has little meaning at all to me.

Science is based on reality. A scientific who denies reality is like a marathon runner who shoot himself in the foot at the start of the race...

To me, 'reality' is that which has been measured by something, making it real to that something. I doubt you'd word it that way, so 'reality' is a term subject to interpretation.

[CPT ArkAngel]

I was not trying to argue with you, Halc, but I was rather trying to point the flaws in the point of view of what is usually being considered as mainstream. If you ask theoretical physicists, most of them will tell you that there is no mainstream in theoretical physics.

Essentially, what I say is Einstein built his theory by following Mach's principle. It is extraordinary successful. Why not use Mach's principle to unify QM and GR to get a Quantum theory which includes gravity? With my explanations, this is quite logical and resounding. Isn't it?

[CPT ArkAngel]

Moreover, there is always holes in any successful theory. I say, rather than trying to fill the holes with everything we could imagine, we should start with the minimum necessary and then add on things from a minimalist perspective. If I remember  correctly, the theoretical estimation of the vacuum energy is 120 orders of magnitude higher than what is being observed at cosmological scale... 1 to the power 120! This is why it is impossible to produce black holes at the LHC but according to some theories, it should be possible.

[Halc]

I was not trying to argue with you, Halc, but I was rather trying to point the flaws in the point of view of what is usually being considered as mainstream. If you ask theoretical physicists, most of them will tell you that there is no mainstream in theoretical physics.

I was going to ask what that mainstream view was, since I doubt that I hold it.  There are many subjects, some scientific, and many philosophical.  QM interpretation is one of them, and there seems to be no mainstream view in physics since the interpretations are not science.
There are also views on time, identity, and other subjects, which probably have different mainstream views if you ask the physicists and if you ask the general public.  The latter group tends not to give much thought to what is implied by physics, but then again, most of them are not posting on sites like this one.

Essentially, what I say is Einstein built his theory by following Mach's principle. It is extraordinary successful. Why not use Mach's principle to unify QM and GR to get a Quantum theory which includes gravity? With my explanations, this is quite logical and resounding. Isn't it?

I'm only mildly familiar with the principle. Unifying the theories cannot be as trivial as mere application of the principle, else it would have been done. No known theory predicts behavior at both levels.

A unified theory would be nice for resolution of the subject matter at hand.  I definitely reach into QM interpretations in making my arguments, and also into some of the implications of relativity theory (which suggests but does not demand an eternal model of the universe)

[CPT ArkAngel]

"Unifying the theories cannot be as trivial as mere application of the principle, else it would have been done."

It is not trivial because we are stuck with probabilities in experiments. Bohm's theory is just an example but it does not go far enough. There are many others like causal sets or the Many-Worlds, which is a weirder kind. The thing is when you look at QM from a causal sets point of view, it explains so many things without any contradiction that it is just striking. And this is how GR works. 

[alancalverd]

The set of integers contains nothing

No. The set of integers contains a number that can denote the absence of stuff. Back to school: if I have one apple and you steal one apple from me, how many apples do I have? An integer is not an object.

[alancalverd]

This leads to an easy explanation for randomness: you need a theoretical mechanism for the measurement process and you need the wave function of a sufficient causal part of the universe to collapse the randomness.

I beg to differ. Measurement interference and wave function collapse are mathematical models of what happens, just as 1 - 1 = 0 is a mathematical model of Halc stealing my apple. There are no apples on this screen, and indeterminacy is an essential property of matter, not induced by observation.