How can something come from nothing?

According to the BBC programme on the subject, there are some data which BB does not account for and there are several alternatives being explored including "the Big Bounce".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

Can we think of the BB theory as a major Kuhnian paradigm in which small anomalies may be expected? Then after decades of "adjustments" it may be followed by a major paradigmatic "revovlution."
Frankly, I am not troubled by the implication that the universe came out of nothing. I can imagine quite comfortably that "nothing" here means no more than a radical change in forms from something that we cannot imagine now to what we see after the BB.

So someone comes up with a theory to account for what THEY say is data standard theory can’t account for (even though virtually ALL the data so far supports the BB). Virtually no other researcher has supported this idea. An incredible increase in the data that supports the BB has been found. And your conclusion is .
Again I would say, putting it in its best light, hyperbole.

There was a cosmologist (credentialed) on the Trinity Broadcast Network. He had a show where he demonstrated how initially questionable or any questionable data as you noted above proves creation. Would you say that he is on the verge of overturning "Big Bang Theory?

Okay. I retract "on the verge of" in favor of " are suggesting an alternative paradigm". Kuhn indeed points out that that paradigm shifts do not happen "overnight".

I'm not sure I follow you, but let me ask: Are you avoiding hyperbole by use of the term "virtually"?

BTW, I have no reason to object to the BB theory. My concern is to get some idea of what it means philosophically. Can we imagine (no matter how fancifully) a scenario that places the BB in a larger context (at least to include the cosmic state before the BB)?
If only for the fun of it.

Hyperbole? On some philosophical level somewhere? Sure, why not. That doesn’t change the fact that the post I replied to was either a mistake or meant to lead FAR more credence to the point the poster was defending than is warranted by the proof offered. By the reply to me it appears to be a misstatement.

I have no idea of what the BB means to an individual philosophically. So I am not the person to ask. But since you bring it up, what does the valance theory mean philosophically? What does the inverse square law mean philosophically? How does one analyze an E(8) x E(8) symmetry philosophically? Or, simply, how does one philosophize what is, at its highest level of precision, a very large number of interrelated differential equations and nothing more.

Nothing more? Then why bother?

I don't, but that shouldn't preclude you from explaining how you do it should it?

True.

The significant issue here is that the idea of "something from nothing" is a philosophically naive concept (on the basis of a discussion of "thing-ness"), yet sufficiently problematic to drive the activities of some scientists in attempts to "negate" it. But as I understand it, problematic fall-out from BB research such as "dark matter" and "dark energy", is likely to eclipse the something-from-nothing issue in terms general intellectual grasp. As pointed out above, much of theoretical physics proceeds by the coherence of its mathematics to generate data, rather than more usual semantics. It may be purely coincidental that BB has "everyday connotations" associated with theistic notions of creation. The celebrated dispute between Einstein and the QM theorists epitomizes the general coherence issue.

nothing more is something since it is not the nothing reference so not nothing at all

The connotative connection between BB and Creation is very interesting: "Let there be light!"
But perhaps of equal interest is Plato's worldview and "In the beginning there was the Word." (if I have that right)

Just a note; the Big Band as postulated was very hot and absolutely dark. Light came into existence only after about 300,000 years from the BB event, with decoupling. Would that still constitute a “connotative connection”?

My general misgiving regarding closed systematic theories and our metaphysical reliance on deductive logic is the fear that they will perpetuate--and perhaps magnify--the fallibilities of our initial axioms.

I suppose not. Shucks!
You can see my obvious naivete regarding math and physics, but it seems SO counter-intuitive that heat and light should ever not be connected.

It seems without knowledge intuition may be: a pretentious form of guessing. Or is that the definition of philosophy? :-)

Seems to me that "believing" is a pretentious form of guessing!

I feel that "knowledge" seems so because of intuition, most often but not always, consensually supported intuitions.
I don't see that "pretension" is a necessary part of it--even of elaborately organized beliefs.

One definition of "philosophy" might be an activity which questions common assumptions about "knowledge" and "existence". A significant recent focus has been on the role of language in those assumptions, including metalanguage such as mathematics and logic. On the last point, views range from mathematics being "embedded in human bodily functioning" to it being " an observer independent abstraction". Obviously, depending on where we place it along such a dimension, it will have consequences for views about "reality". Such analysis tends to relegate lay usage of words like "knowledge" and "belief" to what some philosophers of language have called Geschwätz (idle chatter).

"In the beginning was the word" is indeed interesting if only for axiomatic assumption about the word "beginning" !
Compare also with Heidegger's "Language speaks the Man" or by contrast with Maturana's "languaging" as a form of "structural coupling behavior".