Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

59621Re: A More-Better Nothing

Expand Messages
  • Jim
    Mar 30, 2013

      I agree with your line of thought here.

      In terms of physics, I would call an area of space with nothing in it a vacuum. I cannot see how anything – even tiny sub-atomic particles – could be produced out of a vacuum.

      There used to be philosophical disputes about whether vacuums could exist, but not now.

      If there was nothing but an infinite vacuum before the big bang, I cannot understand how a big bang could happen. But I am not a physicist.


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
      > > How might the two arguments go in defense
      > > of nothing-as-rest or nothing-as-unrest?
      > If nothing were unrest, it would not be nothing because there would be energy.
      > > Can absolute rest cause something? Can it change states?
      > The thing that I was suggesting is that a state of rest may have limitations. To become anything other than nothing, something would be created. It isn't the same as nothing turning into something -- at least not exactly.
      > > Absolute unrest seems a more likely condition for effecting appearance.
      > Unrest = something. Logically you can't have 'nothing' in unrest as then it has some type of energy. Any disturbance in nothing is something.
      > Just to say it for the sake of consistency: this is just how I am thinking of it. I can claim no validity of the model. I find it pleasing.
      > Maurie Lesser
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic