From Nothing to Something

[Loki753]

Here is one of my theories relating to something coming from nothing, I hope that you can point out flaws, critique, or build off of it. Well first I must try and explain what nothingness is, to me nothingness consists of the absence of matter, dimensionality (including time) and most importantly the absence of physical laws. So once physical laws and restrictions are void does that not mean that anything is possible? From here I start having problems, why/how would something go from infinitely chaotic to complete and utter stability? I see two paths where this may lead, one being that everything we know to be reality is just one of infinite calculated possibilities (in a mathematical sense). The other, which correlates with the idea of multiverses, is that there are an infinite amount of universes playing out an infinite amount of possibilities. Although, the problems of contradictions and stability keep showing their ugly faces.

[Spiral Out]

Well first I must try and explain what nothingness is, to me nothingness consists of the absence of matter, dimensionality (including time) and most importantly the absence of physical laws.

Sounds pretty good so far.

So once physical laws and restrictions are void does that not mean that anything is possible?

I think that this is where you get tripped up in conventionally limited logic. A true void (real nothingness) has no potential, therefore nothing is possible. Saying anything is possible would indicate a primordial state of something, not a nothingness, or a void.

From here I start having problems, why/how would something go from infinitely chaotic to complete and utter stability?

There is no evidence of conditions that are infinitely chaotic or completely and utterly stable. There are presumably only varying degrees of flux.

I see two paths where this may lead, one being that everything we know to be reality is just one of infinite calculated possibilities (in a mathematical sense). The other, which correlates with the idea of multiverses, is that there are an infinite amount of universes playing out an infinite amount of possibilities.

Both of these are inherently unknowable. Even if there are infinite possibilities, only one of those particular possibilities can exist (be possible) at any given time. If there are other universes then I would have no reason to think that they are any different than this one.

If multiple universes emerge from one singular source then there is no reason to think that they would posses entirely disparate properties in each universe. Why would a uniform source with an established set of physical laws produce wildly differing universes?

If these individual universes are completely discrete then what could possibly create similarities of form without some type of functional "blueprint"?

I wouldn't think that multiple universes would originate from unrelated individual and disparate sources. I would imagine that multiple universes would be required to originate from a singular source. Thus I would also imagine that they would all have the same set of rules and laws since there is no reasonable logic to assume that any single entity can produce universes with contradictory sets of laws.

That's my take on it anyway.

[Jklint]

Well first I must try and explain what nothingness is, to me nothingness consists of the absence of matter, dimensionality (including time) and most importantly the absence of physical laws.

It's the absence of physical laws I have a problem with. I don't believe and can't imagine that there can ever be such an absence. It's just that they become much more fundamental meaning Laws that are just as valid for any and all Universes if such actually exist. In short, laws which are the scratch pad for any hypothetical universe out there.

Without "physical laws" is such an absolute negation that nothing can be derived from it. It denotes the kind of "Nothing" never before encountered and if it were it would literally be infinitely more astounding than any multiverse imaginable. Anything which has incipience must have laws from viruses to Universes. How else would any genesis assert itself?

[Vijaydevani]

Well first I must try and explain what nothingness is, to me nothingness consists of the absence of matter, dimensionality (including time) and most importantly the absence of physical laws.

It's the absence of physical laws I have a problem with. I don't believe and can't imagine that there can ever be such an absence. It's just that they become much more fundamental meaning Laws that are just as valid for any and all Universes if such actually exist. In short, laws which are the scratch pad for any hypothetical universe out there.

Without "physical laws" is such an absolute negation that nothing can be derived from it. It denotes the kind of "Nothing" never before encountered and if it were it would literally be infinitely more astounding than any multiverse imaginable. Anything which has incipience must have laws from viruses to Universes. How else would any genesis assert itself?

There might not be an absense of physical laws. The thing is the laws of science AS WE KNOW THEM, and as applicable to us, ceased to exist. You must remember that our reference frame is the existing universe, with time space, matter, energy and the laws of science that apply to this universe. When there was no time and no space, our reference frame ceased to exist. So even if (for the sake of argument) "something" existed, as far as we are concerned, it did not exist simply because our frame of reference did not. So for all intents and purposes, whatever existed before, if it existed, as far as WE are concerned did not exist. That is why there was nothing.

[DarwinX]

What we think of as nothing is most probably a something that we can't see.

[Creative]

We experience all of these states that you describe in your post in every day life. We move from something to nothing when we instantaneously move from awake state to sleep state. At that point, from the individual perspective, there is absolutely nothing. Then we also move from nothing to a quasi-nothing when we we move into a dream state. In dreams there are no physical laws, no time (though there is something called duration), and no space. Anything is possible. Them we spontaneously reawaken and we are in the awake state again. And the cycle continues.

[Theophane]

Spiral Out said:

There is no evidence of conditions that are infinitely chaotic or completely and utterly stable.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How could such conditions be evidenced, anyway?

[Spiral Out]

Spiral Out said:

There is no evidence of conditions that are infinitely chaotic or completely and utterly stable.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How could such conditions be evidenced, anyway?

I would modify that motto (which is usually utilized in arguments of the existence of God) to read: "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."

When there are existing conditions, or conditions that have previously existed, then there is usually at least some degree of evidence of such a condition having existed.

[Theophane]

I would modify that motto (which is usually utilized in arguments of the existence of God) to read: "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence."

Yeah, that's better. And yes it is usually used to argue for the existence if not the possibility of God.

When there are existing conditions, or conditions that have previously existed, then there is usually at least some degree of evidence of such a condition having existed.

How would infinitely chaotic conditions be measurable?