How can something come from nothing?

Thanks!

OK, since you want to be coy:

Time as a dimension of spacetime.

Minkowski space

A simpler exposition of the foregoing

Not everyone agrees, of course

There's a really rude, and really ignorant member here who, when confronted with a demand for evidence (which he invariably does not produce) will say: "I'm not your research assistant." I was sorely tempted, but i decided if were shabby and unconvincing on his part, so it would be for me.

As long as you're being snotty there, Bubba, i'll take the opportunity to point out that you have provided no proofs for any of your contentions. I have lost any interest in continuing to converse with you.

I merely point out that recent philosophers of language reject description as simply representational. Instead they argue that description is always contextually functional.
Consider the existential status of "knife" in this well known exchange.
GIRL: Watch out Mick, that punk's got a knife.
CROC DUNDEE: That's not a knife ! (pulling out his bush knife) That's a knife ! (...punk flees).
Note how "reality" is a function of human social context.

I know what your dogma is, i just don't share it.

Your comment evokes (brings into existence) a "me" which counters with... that "you" is coexistent with what it calls "dogma".
Isn't transitional reality fascinating !

Time is as “real” (or whatever term you would use) as the other dimensions (height, depth, width). I would think this self-evident for anyone understanding science at the level purported here. In fact in Minkoswki and Phase Space, time and the spatial dimensions are interchangeable. In the Swartzchild type of singularity once you're inside of the event horizon, the coordinates describing radial distance and time change places. The coordinate that shows distance from center "r", is a time-like coordinate, and "t" is a space-like. So it seems to me that science demonstrates time as real as distance.

The experience of the passage of time cannot, however, be demonstrated by science (at least yet). The logician Gödel had a great interest and did work in this area. There is even a common term to describe the (false?) experience of time passing: “The Fallacy of the animated Minkowski Diagram”. The explanation is that we get cues that lead to an appearance of time passage from several (three) different phenomena. We (sentient?) all use these and so are in agreement in a real passage of time.

Except in possibly assisting in rationalization of some very esoteric calculations and some enjoyable speculation I don’t think any of this really affects me “in reality”.

You know, if I am to be consistent with my position, I would have to say that time is real, but not only real 'for us'. It is a part of the things themselves.

Sorry. I sometimes shift back and forth from Kantian thinking to Speculative Realism.

And I also made the error of conflating the concept of time with time itself. Time is real and it is a part of the things themselves. Thinking about the second law set that straight.

Corrected the error. I do agree that time is real. The pertinent question is: in what sense is time real? Is it solely 'for us' or independent or both? I think it's the third option, which takes into account physics and my philosophical leanings.

Do you mean that the "run up to Christmas" might be an illusion?

I have noticed on many occasions that philosopher types are prepared to have a discussion with me for just so long as they think they can patronise me.

One simple question usually suffices to have them running for cover like a rabbit does to its burrow with a greyhound after it.

Thank you, Val. I was surprised that Ding thought that I had asserted that “time is independent of us.” I had done no such thing…fact is, I have absolutely no idea if time is independent of us or not….and I think I have made that abundantly clear.

I asked Ding about that…but he has not responded.

Can you spell "paranoia"?

Yeah, you made it abundantly clear.

I guess, if you put yourself into space, earth time ceases to exist, then time would perhaps then have to be measured by the speed of light?
.

Time cannot be measured by the speed of light, because the speed of light presupposes time, since it is the magnitude of velocity (dx/dt)

Don't talk to me, clown. You, in a snotty manner, insisted that i meet a standard you have not met here. I'm not going to engage with you any longer, because you're arrogant and attempt to overbear.

For sure. I know what it means too.

The simple answer is that no one knows.

From our human perspective, it can't...despite all the pontification of would-be scientists and philosophers in this thread.

It could be God; it could be something else.

Whatever it is, we, as humans, will never know.

What triggered the Big Bang? Maybe it was just one of an infinite Big Bangs in a cycle of creation and destruction, but our minds will always ask: OK what started the cycle?

The only chance we have to answer this question is to die.

I would change "simple" to "simplistic".

At the risk of "pontification" I would point that those (esoteric) philosophies
which stress the impermanence of "self" and its co-existence with all it sees as "things" have in essence simulated the "dying act " already !

And the insight forthcoming from that is that the question is transcended and dissipates.