How can something come from nothing?

don't worry gentle reader, I have an exquisite source list. Which one? Would you prefer?

No, it is not that simple - at all, especially in a discussion.


On the surface, maybe, but why don't you 'try sailing a little bit behind the navigation buoy'.


O.K. Obviously you have understood something.


This is not exactly the meaning of something here, but as you say it.
IMV the interpretation of something is: anything that is being or existing ... under whatever conditions ... or something of the kind.


Where do you take these definitions from? You cannot use frivolously the everyday interpretations of the words just so, as terms in a discussion.


And how will you interpret the whole phrase: 'How can a 'thing that is unspecified' (something) come from no value (nothing)', or what?

You may continue exercising in 'reading English':
Nothing - Df. Lowest energy state of a theory; quantum vacuum; non-existence of space - zero-D space; the non-existence of the physical world, etc.
Something - Df. Anything that has higher energy state than the lowest possible one; anything that may involve matter and its motion through space in time, incl. energy and force; the physical materialization of the mode of existence, etc.

Reality is timeless...wait a couple more years till scientists catch up with philosophers...the big bang must in one way or another fit some sort of a cyclic model no matter if the Universe is either flat or curved...13.7 Billion years might well just mean that we are circumscribed to 13.7 B years of an observable horizon...

"How can something come from nothing" turns into "How can we get into the Temple of Set, by the Police" lol on making a temple the police were too dumb to get into. I wish people would stop pretending to be the temple of set or stop trying to get me to write strong proofs or theoretical problems about ex nihilo.

The world has ex nihilo brain. I can't do anything about that. It also has Nietzsche brain. That's the thing I figured out, Nietzsche only became famous after the war. Because, otherwise he would have had students.

st. Nietzsche

Don't forget that this planet has already gone through two ice ages, and what happens to life is another big question mark.

Actually, something didn't come from nothing. There has always been something. Then it became something else.

Simple, eh?

That's impossible too. Our minds comprehend birth. Knowing we comprehend knowledge of the universe, we should be able to comprehend birth of the universe.

it's bothering people these days but it hasn't always bothered people.

This is highly questionable. How is the whole information about our development, body structure, vulnerability to diseases, etc. stored in 46 chromosomes (of 'chemistry' as FM says)? Where does our mind come from upon birth? ... and how? - I am not sure that we can call this exactly awareness.


This is also very questionable. We think that we know something, but actually we don't know exactly what we know and what we don't know ... and what we will never be able to get knowing.


This is not for sure. The trial for inference by analogy is not correct. If our minds understand our birth, the right inference by analogy would be that the Mind of the Universe (the Mind of God, or the String Theory, or the Absolute Intelligence, or whatever there it might be) should be able to understand Its birth. We don't know whether the Absolute Intelligence is aware about its own birth or not, and we don't even know whether it is knowable to us or not.
On the other side the very fact that we have some idea about our birth does not necessarily mean that the beetles, for example, should be able also to have some idea about our birth. The mapping of the analogy is distorted, hence the inference by analogy made here is invalidated.

I was being facetious, of course. Then again, though we may comprehend our birth, certainly much preceded our birth. The only thing new at birth is sentience. And, I wold aver sentience occurs long before nativity.

Anyway, what evidence could there be of universal nothingness, neither matter nor energy at at any 'time' past? I use the word 'time' with caution, since many consider 'time' only by sequence of events. No events, no time, or is it so?

We can feel as we are birthed in our un-passive, un-faithful human style. Coming out of mothers vagina is no peace hahaha. I hate birth. Why did it happen if we can't be passive? Maybe we are nothing. We can be anti violence as much as we want, but we how will we ever be transgression free? We don't know, no peace, guns everywhere, were not safe. Can all these thing just come into our lives; salvation, peace, knowledge.

I will always know this is how it happened, can it be passive-faithful.

You use terms like un-passive, un-faithful, and passive-faithful. What are these supposed to mean, exactly?

Passive is a word to describe a feeling of air or wind through your body. It means non violence, non-transgression, no hate, no danger, but your aren't suppose to say all that because it brings all that. Passive is all good things, and it looks like I either am very lost or need him to be present in my life.

Faithful is a word I made up as a child. I believe, it's like a spirit who knows its good and that good things are real. It's a sense, it brings perfection, happiness, satisfaction, hope, spirits, knowledge.

Good and passive wind and fire.

The totality of the universe can only be nothing. An action upon a body has an equal and opposite reaction, signifying nothing. The total amount of matter in the universe equals the amount of anti-matter, signifying the totality of 0 again. There is something, but the totality of it is nothing, and can only ever be nothing.

That makes no sense.

Try to understand the confusion you sow when you plant your personal definitions into words. Neologisms may serve the poet well, but serve little use in logical communication.

Where is the evidences and the proof of this. If this is true the Universe should compose predominantly of high-energy photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and lower-mass particle–antiparticle pairs, etc.
Where is the evidence of that claim?

Sure it makes sense. The basis of this theory is that mathematics can accurately and exhaustively describe the universe. Want to do science without mathematics?

Mathematics is based on 0, and so is the universe based on 0. The 1 derives from 0 as a rewrite of it. Thus 01 = 0, because there is a boolean relationship between the 0 and the 1.

If you want to debate zero get this thing clear in your mind zero is not nothing. Zero is just balance between things.
(like for instance opposing forces)

A zero after any number increases its value. Try 1 plus 0 or .01 plus any number.