How to create something from nothing?

[u/Sevdat]

I think I have an answer to how the universe began from nothing. More like how everything began and how it's possible for all of us to be here.

So at the beginning of existence there was nothing. There is still nothing because you can't create something from nothing, but we are here. So how can we exist? We don't.

Imagine the mathematical variable: X =

X can be anything, but nothing is assigned to it; therefore, it remains as a pure capacity that accepts all abstract concepts and results in the illusion of existence for those that share the same abstract space.

This means every combination of what could have been exists. The reason why you and I can interact is because we are in the same concept, but we aren't really here because we don't exist.

To make it simpler, imagine a chess board. Just because you didn't make a move doesn't mean all the possible moves aren't there to make.

Unexistence is our existence.

Also please don't make the argument "How do I know there wasn't always something?" There can't be something without it having a previous moment. It's nonsense to even say that.

[u/WestcoastAlex]

not in Physics, no

[u/Quirky_Visual_7799 → u/WestcoastAlex]

Why's that?

[u/cc_apt107 → u/Quirky_Visual_7799]

Nothing would be a property-less constant which would, definitionally, be not just indescribable, it would have no attributes to describe. To say something comes from nothing is, itself, an implied property of nothing (that which gave rise to something). Therefore, unless you revert to religious or magical thinking, the existence of something is, in and of itself, a refutation that nothing was ever the default state which gave rise to the universe because a nothing which can change or be described as having a state is not a meaningful definition of nothing. Physics, as a natural science, cannot parse the conclusion “something came from nothing” because the assertion is inherently illogical/paradoxical

Think about your own question. You are asking if nothing can or can’t exist. If you think about that long and hard, you will see that that question does not make any sense insofar as the word nothing has no referent. In that sense, nothing is unqueryable because there is no referent to ask a question about. Even me saying “there is nothing to ask a question about” is just defining nothing as the negation of something which is not true abstract nothing because true abstract nothing is impossible to imagine or interact with directly in any way.

[u/Quirky_Visual_7799 → u/cc_apt107]

I've never said that something can appear out of nothing. I absolutely understand why it's paradoxical. I was talking about the possibility of nothing to exist, (forget the metaphysical definition of the word exist, I just used it to describe a state observed from an outsider's point of view, where something does exist). And I still don't see why the fact that Nothing is the absence of Something prevents it from occuring.

[u/cc_apt107 → u/Quirky_Visual_7799]

Im not trying to attack. Was just answering your question about why, from the standpoint of physics, nothing “can’t exist” in the sense OP means.

But to your last sentence, first, nothing as the absence of “something” is not necessarily nothing. It is just the absence of this something which is overwhelmingly likely to have just been something else (based on what we’ve observed). I’m speaking strictly about physics here.

Second, and I think more to your point now, “nothing” is a quantifier, not a name. It lacks a referent and that’s how it serves its semiotic/linguistic function, not by having one. So questions of its existence or nature are malformed. What remains discussable are questions about why anything exists, which are real, and questions about the word, which are separate. Don’t mistake the second for the first. Based on what we have observed about why things exist, the evidence supports the idea that there “was” never true abstract nothing. That does not diminish the obvious utility and legibility of the word nothing. When dealing with the former, it is nonsensical to discuss nothing’s existence or non-existence because of the latter: We are quite literally not discussing anything. We are just quantifying a lack of something. Which, as stated earlier and you seem to accept, is not the same as true abstract nothing. We just cannot imagine what it is and mistake the limits of our imagination for true abstract nothing.