Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/ 2/04 3:20pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "nothing from nothing leaves...nothing." on 04/29/04 2:37pm
>>Nothing is better defined as "the absence of all
>>magnitude or quantity," the complete absence of
>>anything and everything.
>
>I don't know that it's "better defined"
Of course it is. It more accurately fits the dictionary definition.
>However, a vast array of quantum fluctuations is
>precisely the complete absence of anything and
>everything.
Of course it is not. A vast array of quantum fluctuations and a sea of energy has just exactly that, and is therefore not literal nothing.
>>Thus, a fluctuating sea of
>>energy is not literal nothingness.
>
>When you speak of nothing, what you are actually
>talking about is the "sea of fluctuating energy"
No, that is not what I am talking about. You have misconstrued my words.
>>Literal
>>nothingness would mean a complete lack of anything,
>>including a sea of energy.
>
>No, it wouldn't.
That is illogical. A sea of energy is not the complete absence of everything, for it does not contain the absence of a sea of energy, physical laws etc.
My point is this: if you redefine the word "nothing" to mean a seething froth of wormholes, black holes, and fluctuating energy states, then yes something can come from nothing. But to say that this violates the belief of theists like myself in ex nihilo nihil fit would be making the fallacy of equivocation, since that is not what they mean by "nothing." In the context I am using it (especially in ex nihilo nihil fit) nothingness is a complete absence of anything, including tiny wormholes, black holes, fluctuating energy etc.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 