It seems like the "nothing" is a fairly peculiar kind of nothing. I agree that there were quantum fields.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I find it hard to believe that the authors of this paper made such a fundamental error. I think it's far more likely that they know something about this that we don't.
A field is defined to be a function which has a value everywhere in space. So, if you want to use QFT to explain the universe's origin, you are more or less forced into conceptualising some kind of space which existed prior to the universe.
It's certainly not the same "nothing" as the metaphysical "nothing" of Parmenides (ex nihilo nihil fit)I have to agree that there's a lot of equivocation about what 'nothing' is. And it's very much the same 'nothing' that Krauss refers to in A Universe from Nothing, and I have the same criticism.
It's certainly not the same "nothing" as the metaphysical "nothing" of Parmenides (ex nihilo nihil fit)
so beloved of creationists. That "nothing" is a useless abstract concept which need not concern us.
LOL. Apparently it's an oxymoron. But of what use is it? If it is not abstract it must be concrete. Where or when has nothing in the sense you mean ever existed? Can nothing be said to exist at all?It's not nothing. That's all. There is nothing useless or abstract about the idea of nothing. If we leave the sophistry aside, everyone knows what nothing is.
LOL. Apparently it's an oxymoron. But of what use is it? If it is not abstract it must be concrete. Where or when has nothing in the sense you mean ever existed? Can nothing be said to exist at all?
No, it's not an argument at all. I'm just making fun of metaphysics, which has no place in scientific discourse.References to absence occur in every language and are perfectly useful and relevant to everyday life. Further, reference to the absence of some particular usually brings with it the logic which allows us to refer to universal absence.
The sophistry that you're proposing is basically, "If language doesn't refer to a positive entity, then it doesn't count!" That's a great argument if you're uninterested in reality.
I'm just making fun of metaphysics, which has no place in scientific discourse.
That's not how they view it. Metaphysical "truths" are conclusions of deductive logic. Conclusions of deductive logic have no standing in science unless they can be empirically verified.In this case your statement is particularly false, for the scientists in question are attempting to challenge a basic metaphysical truth. It is funny, though. I'll give you that.![]()
That's not how they view it. Metaphysical "truths" are conclusions of deductive logic. Conclusions of deductive logic have no standing in science unless they can be empirically verified.
So you don't think the "existence" of metaphysical nothing can be confirmed empirically? Real philosophers understand it to be an unfalsifiable proposition anyway.The only reason this article has gained any traction, particularly on this forum, is because its title claims to contradict the old philosophical maxim, ex nihilo nihil fit. It is the scientists who have attempted to enter a metaphysical space. The philosophers are doing little more than rolling their eyes.
No, metaphysics is a discourse of deductive logic, nothing more.Beyond that, any modest student of the history of science understands the connection between metaphysics, physics, empirical observation, and modern science. Metaphysics didn't come about by way of magic or revelation.
Everyone also knows what a unicorn is. That does not mean it has ever existed.It's not nothing. That's all. There is nothing useless or abstract about the idea of nothing. If we leave the sophistry aside, everyone knows what nothing is.
Everyone also knows what a unicorn is. That does not mean it has ever existed.
Sure. I've never claimed that nothing existed. I'm just hoping that we can come to a more modest conclusion and agree that unicorns don't have three horns.
Ex nihilo nihil fit and creatio ex nihilo are two very different things. Conflating them won't do anyone any good.
The concept of nothing being used in the paper is spelled out. That it does not match your idea of nothing I do not see as significant.
Lol. I could write a paper entitled, "New scientific research proves that 2+2=5." In the paper I would of course define "5" as "4". To the objectors I would reply, "The concept of '5' being used in the paper is spelled out. That it does not match your idea of '5' I do not see as significant." I would try to keep a straight face as I said this.![]()