How can something come from nothing?

[Linusthe2nd]

As a final post on this thread I would like to point out that Aristotle explained and Thomas Aquinas agreed that every physical reality in the universe is derived from an elemental form of matter called Prime Matter but that prime matter does not exist as a separate substance, rather all substances are derived from prime matter in conjunction with a substantial form and that it is through the substantial form that existence comes to each particular substance. The existence of any particular substance unites the substantial form to a particular, suitable derivative of prime matter, a suitible, particular matter. Thus, the substantial form of a horse is united to the matter suitable to a horse, a particular, suitable matter that allows us to identify this entity as this horse. And this particular matter is derived from Prime Matter but is defined and limited by the substantial form of horse.

Now there is no prime matter from which ’ empty space ’ or a ’ void ’ could be formed. And here we must understand that ’ empty space ’ or a ’ void ’ are defined as having no substance, no physical reality whatever. Therefore ’ empty space ’ or a ’ void ’ cannot exist in the universe, because non-being cannot exist. On the other hand there is no physical limit to how subtle matter can be. It is possible, even extremely likely, that there are physical entities, some things whose particular matter is so ethereal, so subtle that they cannot be detected by scientific means. I am thinking here of such things as gravity, strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, perhaps even such things as aether, or even more subtle forms of matter we don’t know about, which one may describe as some plasma like substances which are pervasive througout every square centimeter of the universe.

And this philosophical vision of the universe is highly compatible with the idea of God’s creation. God creates things, realities, and in the physical universe this means things or substances composed of matter and form. He does not create ’ nothing ’ because, as Fr. Robert Spitzer says, " …nothing is just nothing…" The only things God created which lacked some form of matter are spirits such as the human soul and angels. And I am sure no one is going to suggest that there are areas of the universe composed of a soul. Such an idea would not be very scientific, nor would it be theologically acceptible, nor would it find any support in Divine Revelation.

Now if one wants to describe those areas of the universe in which only the above named plasmas exist as ’ empty space ’ or a ’ void ’ that is fine, but let that be clearly explained, let it be explained that we are not saying that there is nothing there, that these are areas without substance, that they are areas of non-being.

And as for inserting the idea that " unexcited quantum fields " can be equated to ’ nothing, ’ but that they are the stuff from which matter or " excited quantum fields " are derived, ’ two things must be recognized. First it must be understood that the very concept of " quantum fields " is hotly debated and has no accepted definition and it is hardly agreed what it could possibly mean. plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/. Secondly, as discussed it applies only to nano-reality but in such a way that there is no agreement what this reality is in relation to the actually exiting physical universe of physical substances. And whatever that is or may be, it no where suggests that there is ’ empty space ’ or ’ voids ’ in the nano-universe. In other words, the idea of uniform plasma like connecting structures is in no way excluded. Indeed there is no reason to suppose that non-being exists even in the nano-universe. After all, God created the nano-universe as well as the macro-universe.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

As a final post on this thread I would like to point out that Aristotle explained and Thomas Aquinas agreed that every physical reality in the universe is derived from an elemental form of matter called Prime Matter but that prime matter does not exist as a separate substance, rather all substances are derived from prime matter in conjunction with a substantial form and that it is through the substantial form that existence comes to each particular substance. The existence of any particular substance unites the substantial form to a particular, suitable derivative of prime matter, a suitible, particular matter. Thus, the substantial form of a horse is united to the matter suitable to a horse, a particular, suitable matter that allows us to identify this entity as this horse. And this particular matter is derived from Prime Matter but is defined and limited by the substantial form of horse.

Now there is no prime matter from which ’ empty space ’ or a ’ void ’ could be formed. And here we must understand that ’ empty space ’ or a ’ void ’ are defined as having no substance, no physical reality whatever. Therefore ’ empty space ’ or a ’ void ’ cannot exist in the universe, because non-being cannot exist. On the other hand there is no physical limit to how subtle matter can be. It is possible, even extremely likely, that there are physical entities, some things whose particular matter is so ethereal, so subtle that they cannot be detected by scientific means. I am thinking here of such things as gravity, strong and weak forces, electromagnetic forces, perhaps even such things as aether, or even more subtle forms of matter we don’t know about, which one may describe as some plasma like substances which are pervasive througout every square centimeter of the universe.

And this philosophical vision of the universe is highly compatible with the idea of God’s creation. God creates things, realities, and in the physical universe this means things or substances composed of matter and form. He does not create ’ nothing ’ because, as Fr. Robert Spitzer says, " …nothing is just nothing…" The only things God created which lacked some form of matter are spirits such as the human soul and angels. And I am sure no one is going to suggest that there are areas of the universe composed of a soul. Such an idea would not be very scientific, nor would it be theologically acceptible, nor would it find any support in Divine Revelation.

Now if one wants to describe those areas of the universe in which only the above named plasmas exist as ’ empty space ’ or a ’ void ’ that is fine, but let that be clearly explained, let it be explained that we are not saying that there is nothing there, that these are areas without substance, that they are areas of non-being.

And as for inserting the idea that " unexcited quantum fields " can be equated to ’ nothing, ’ but that they are the stuff from which matter or " excited quantum fields " are derived, ’ two things must be recognized. First it must be understood that the very concept of " quantum fields " is hotly debated and has no accepted definition and it is hardly agreed what it could possibly mean. plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-field-theory/. Secondly, as discussed it applies only to nano-reality but in such a way that there is no agreement what this reality is in relation to the actually exiting physical universe of physical substances. And whatever that is or may be, it no where suggests that there is ’ empty space ’ or ’ voids ’ in the nano-universe. In other words, the idea of uniform plasma like connecting structures is in no way excluded. Indeed there is no reason to suppose that non-being exists even in the nano-universe. After all, God created the nano-universe as well as the macro-universe.

Pax
Linus2nd

It seems clear to me that you are confusing metaphysical catogories with scientific categories. When philosophers speak of a metaphysical nothing, they mean the absence of being. When scientists speak about a void they do not mean the absence of being in an absolute sense but rather they mean it in a relative sense.

If prime matter is the underlying bases of everything physical then it is also the underlying bases of space as well.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It seems clear to me that you are confusing metaphysical catogories with scientific categories. When philosophers speak of a metaphysical nothing, they mean the absence of being. When scientists speak about a void they do not mean the absence of being in an absolute sense but rather they mean it in a relative sense.

If prime matter is the underlying bases of everything physical then it is also the underlying bases of space as well.

Then scientists should make it clear what exactly they do mean. They should not use misleading terms like ’ empty, ’ ’ nothing, ’ or ’ void. ’

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Kurisu35712]

Then scientists should make it clear what exactly they do mean. They should not use misleading terms like ’ empty, ’ ’ nothing, ’ or ’ void. ’

Pax
Linus2nd

They do that already. They’re using the scientific definition of those words. The terms are only misleading if one doesn’t understand the difference between a scientific definition and a philosophical one. I’m running into this same problem in another thread where one poster believes viruses to be alive. But they aren’t using the biological definition of life, so they don’t seem to be getting that viruses cannot be alive because they are viruses.

The scientific definition of empty and void and nothing are not equivalent to the word non-existent and no scientist using those words thinks that they are.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

They do that already. They’re using the scientific definition of those words. The terms are only misleading if one doesn’t understand the difference between a scientific definition and a philosophical one. I’m running into this same problem in another thread where one poster believes viruses to be alive. But they aren’t using the biological definition of life, so they don’t seem to be getting that viruses cannot be alive because they are viruses.

The scientific definition of empty and void and nothing are not equivalent to the word non-existent and no scientist using those words thinks that they are.

The problem is that the way they are used is misleading - even to other scientists. It is worse for the general public who are not privy to the real meaning some scientists have in mind. One can only suspect that certain scientists and cosmologists have use misleading language intentionally. It is not credible that they are ignorant of the true meaning of such terms as ’ empty ’ and ’ void. ’ And that is why I say it is a problem which touches the integrity of science itself.

Pax
Linus2nd