Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Saturday, May 04, 07:42:59pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: nothin Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 04/28/04 7:01pm In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "understanding" on 04/28/04 7:00pm > > >>If you redefine "nothing" to mean "a fluctuating sea >>of energy" (and that's what a vacuum is, among other >>things) then yes modern science supports the idea of >>something coming from nothing. But clearly this is >>not an example of a true violation of ex nihilo >>nihil fit because "nothing" was used in a >>very different sense then what is meant in the >>Latin phrase. > >How so? "Nothing" modernly and classically simply >means all that's left when everything that can be >taken out is taken out. > > > > > When we use the word "nothing" in its >>more classic dictionary definition, the Latin phrase >>holds true. > >I'm not sure why "nothing" would be any different >nowadays. It may be more refined, but what has been >refined is more along the lines of what we mean when >we say we see "nothing". > >A "quantum sea of fluctuations" is nothing as we know >it to be, Latin or otherwise. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Much ado about nothing Wade A. Tisthammer 04/29/04 12:58pm nothing from nothing leaves...nothing. Damoclese 04/29/04 2:37pm Beware the fallacy of equivocation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 2/04 3:20pm Imagining -- Damoclese, 05/ 4/04 9:43am Imagining ex nihilo -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 7/04 2:31pm End game -- Damoclese, 05/ 7/04 4:42pm Are ee ess pee ee see tee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/10/04 4:09pm