/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11528830]

I keep seeing people say "something cannot come from nothing".
But uh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
Books for this feel?

[Anonymous No.11528840]

>>11528830
sounds like bourgeois rationalist horseshit

[Anonymous No.11528858]

>>11528840
Nice argument.

[Anonymous No.11528864]

>>11528858
arguing is for bourgeois rationalists

[Anonymous No.11528868]

>>11528830
Preexisting quantum shithole environment that gives rise to fluctuations m

[Anonymous No.11528953]

>>11528830
Quantum fluctuations are describable mathematically, physicists still understand there to be properties of a system which can be described. That doesn't suggest "nothing". It's just an "uncertain" thing.

[Mr. Mastadon No.11529023]

>>11528864
The only right answer

[Anonymous No.11529060]

>>11528830
You could have already known that if you studied philosophy.

There's no a priori reason to believe that being has to come from being.

[Mr. Mastadon No.11529074]

>>11529060
B-but science...you don't believe in science anon? What are you, a-a republican?

[Anonymous No.11529230]

>>11529060
How are we defining nothing/non-being? Some would say nothing is just completely indeterminate, "chaotic", etc. which is closer to QM wavefunctions, though there are probabilities that are predicted so it still isn't quite "nothing".

[Anonymous No.11529255]

>>11529230
"Nothing" can only be understood in terms of negation in logic: "It is not the case that there is X". Otherwise, you have to start describing "nothing" as a thing, which is absurd.

But we don't even have to get into the metaphysics of nothing because the point can be put that there need not be a cause for a being. A being can come into existence with no cause. There's nothing incoherent about this.

[Anonymous No.11529266]

>>11528830
Less than Nothing

[Anonymous No.11529384]

>>11529255
>there need not be a cause for a being. >A being can come into existence with no cause.
Elaborate or suggest a book about this please. From my point of view everything requires a source to happen, it seems intuitive and backed by experience.

[Anonymous No.11529423]

>>11529384
I agree tho I didn't really want to get into it. My intuition says not X isn't going to directly result in X. Seemed like the suggestion there is nothing to claim it couldn't happen is impossible to disprove.

[Anonymous No.11529432]

>>11529266
unironically this

[Anonymous No.11529960]

>>11528864
based prole
>HE TAKES A WHISKY DRINK
>HE TAKES A VODKA DRINK

[Anonymous No.11530025]

Quantum fields aren't nothing.

[Anonymous No.11530365]

>I keep seeing people say "something cannot come from nothing"

But are those people the same ones who make an exception to "God"?
>B-but God is mysterious, we cannot comprehend him

[Anonymous No.11530382]

>>11529384
>From my point of view everything requires a source to happen
Just read Hume or at least understand his problem with causality. As we learn more about the universe through science, Hume seems to become even more relevant.

[Anonymous No.11530846]

>>11530382
>As we learn more about the universe through science, Hume seems to become even more relevant.
What scientific discoveries have given Hume relevancy?

[Anonymous No.11530878]

something from outside of this universe can be exhibited within this universe and no one will be able to connect it to a casual source because it will have none that's scientifically measurable.
>>11530382
I mean maybe but I feel like this is such a simple fucking concept it makes me a little sad we need poster boys for them when there's so much speculation to be done that takes getting these basics down and fucking over with

[Anonymous No.11530924]

>>11528830
This just means that until we can measure something it doesn't exist for us, and therefore according to our scientific models it appears as though particles spring from the void. That is, they don't even become "particles" until we can assign them a discrete quantity. Now, what allows us to do this? We need some sort of interaction to occur of an intensity significant enough for us to be able to measure the difference. Now, for us to measure some fluctuation, we need a tool which is sensitive enough to capture this fluctuation. This means that we need something smaller (in wavelength) than what we are trying to measure, otherwise our experiment is veiled in uncertainty. Thus, nothing is merely an absence of data, and without this we cannot discover the existence of anything. Now this does not mean that the universe is "made up of data" as the pseuds who thought they could skip metaphysics say. It just means that we cannot form conceptions without it, and we have no means of experiencing what the universe is in itself directly and indeed this would be a contradiction in terms.

[Anonymous No.11531041]

>>11530878
>something from outside of this universe can be exhibited within this universe
Where do you get that from? It makes no sense to me. You first assume there are things outside the universe and then also assume they can enter it. But you can't defend any of those points.

By definition, the word universe encompasses everything that exists. One word for all of existence.
And no, string theory with the multiverse theories are not a valid argument, many physiciss do not agree with them and even if it ended up being true, it means the universe turns out to be bigger than we initially though, the concept is simply extended in size. Anything from outside the universe is better defined as being part of it.

The cause-effect makes intuitive sense. It's what binds the universe through time, independently of what you define time to be. If an object moves at 1 m/s in a direction you can expect the effect to be that in 1 second it will be 1 m away in that direction. Calling this a mere correlation is not enough.
Defending noncausality in events would require a lot of proof, but instead we see constant proof in favor of causality.

[Anonymous No.11532599]

>>11530846
https://physicsworld.com/a/quantum-mechanics-trumps-nonlocal-causality/
>Because quantum properties have inherent randomness, these correlations are typically revealed in averages of many measurements.
Sounds familiar, right? And if you want something longer https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07201

[Anonymous No.11532644]

>>11531041
>By definition, the word universe encompasses everything that exists.
>Anything from outside the universe is better defined as being part of it.
Look at the context, that anon is obviously referring to the observable universe.
>The cause-effect makes intuitive sense.
>If an object moves at 1 m/s in a direction you can expect the effect to be that in 1 second it will be 1 m away in that direction. Calling this a mere correlation is not enough.
Wrong.
>we see constant proof in favor of causality.
Also wrong, and far from the actual scientific consensus within the field. Refer to >>11532599 for the details within the links.

[Anonymous No.11532656]

There was never nothing. There was always something. There is never nothing. There is always something.

So the paradox disappears.

[Anonymous No.11532669]

>>11528830
Even vacuums have matter in them

[Anonymous No.11533403]

>>11532656

[Anonymous No.11534280]

>>11530025
That does not mean they are something.

[Anonymous No.11534303]

>>11528830
this was solved centuries ago.

[Anonymous No.11534364]

>>11534280
But they're not nothing. If they were nothing we would use the world we have for nothing, "nothing", rather than "quantum fields"!

[Anonymous No.11534372]

>>11534364
*word

[Anonymous No.11534386]

>>11528830
but philosophy already told "something cannot come from nothing" a long time ago

[Anonymous No.11536027]

>>11528830
My diary, desu.

[Anonymous No.11536040]

>>11529384
>it seems intuitive and backed by experience.

[Anonymous No.11536157]

>>11528830
>retarded plebbitor reads a wikipedia article and understands nothing - the post

[Anonymous No.11536210]

>>11529423
>>11529384
So, to cut to the chase, what caused causality?

It's rather meaningless to speak of a time before time.

[Anonymous No.11537804]

>>11528864
What else then?
We kill each other with our fists and teeth?
Argument is different from quarrel, most people don't know the difference.

Take the red pill on the necessity of debate you sap.

[Anonymous No.11537820]

>>11529384
I said that there's no a priori reason to believe this. There is an empirical reason (if we do in fact have empirical knowledge), but it only shows a contingent fact of our physical universe, not a metaphysical principle.

[Anonymous No.11537862]

yall niggas need to read parmenides

[Anonymous No.11537878]

>>11537862
parmenides can be btfo by an undergrad in 30 seconds

[Anonymous No.11537928]

>>11537878

[Anonymous No.11539263]

>>11528830
My diary.