With regards to Ben's new article -- Ben's Message Board

[ 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 10, 11:47:20pm

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

Subject: With regards to Ben's new article

Author:
Damoclese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07/22/04 11:04pm

Ben,

I read your latest article, and figured I'd comment on the impressions I had while reading it.

I agree that if there was total nothingness as defined as "no anything" (and not even that) I don't imagine there's a way to produce stuff, although even on this point I'm a little uneasy because having never seen absolute nothing, I have no idea what to expect from it.

This brings up an immediate contrast in my mind between imaginary quintessential nothingness, and what "real nothingness" in nature produces, or doesn't, if you will.

Nowadays, nothing is defined as that which is left when you take out everything that can be taken out. What's left is a vacuum that is in a fluctuating state of energies, with the ability to throw off virtual particles that for most purposes never exist. All that action averages out to zero, which gives us the appearance of a vacuum being nothing.

Every now and then though, a virtual particle can be turned into a real particle by a series of things that have to all line up ever so nicely.

Now, whether or not "true nothing" consists of an average of a frothy sea of strange fluctuations or not, well, that's a point of debate. I'm inclined to say that if a vacuum isn't nothing, nothing is. (giggle)

Having said all that, I think that you're pretty much right. Either something had to always exist, or somewhere along the way something logically inconceivable happened, and something came from nothing. Regardless, what that something is that always existed could be the universe, matter, or God, and none of them are particularly more overpowering than the other, although I see little reason to appeal to super natural powers when not necessary.

Therefore, if the universe or matter always existed, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm not sure that I'd rule nothing out just yet.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]