There’s a difference between a cause being indeterminable (forever or given certain technological limitations) and having no cause. The fact that the decay can be modeled, particularly over long periods of time, suggests that it’s not completely random. The actual Cesium-137 decay also requires a reason for its being, at least, in that you can’t have it without a cesium ion, and is therefore actually not from nothing. The cesium ion is a side of the decay.This is proved scientifically. Consider the case of decay of Cesium 137. The decay is completely irregular. Something which is completely irregular in its nature cannot have a cause.
That I understand but indeterminability of the quantum fluctuations are not due to technical limitation but their intrinsic nature.There’s a difference between a cause being indeterminable (forever or given certain technological limitations) and having no cause.
They are completely random. The models only provide half-life or decay probability in a given time.The fact that the decay can be modeled, particularly over long periods of time, suggests that it’s not completely random.
There is a reason for the decay but there is no cause.The actual Cesium-137 decay also requires a reason for its being, at least, in that you can’t have it without a cesium ion, and is therefore actually not from nothing. The cesium ion is a side of the decay.
I don’t know what you are talking about.This is proved scientifically. Consider the case of decay of Cesium 137. The decay is completely irregular. Something which is completely irregular in its nature cannot have a cause.
Half life is of course is not irregular. What is irregular is decay of single atom.I don’t know what you are talking about.
Caesium-137 is known to have a half-life of 30 years - hardly irregular…
Like rolling dice, the pattern of probable numbers is seen after many rolls.Half life is of course is not irregular. What is irregular is decay of single atom.
Yes. There is no pattern when you roll a dice once but you can find a pattern, the probability that you have a given number, after rolling many times.Like rolling dice, the pattern of probable numbers is seen after many rolls.
View attachment 23552
No roll of the dice, no pattern; right?
The quantities which are conserves are mass and energy. So we can have extra matter with expense of negative energy, gravitational energy. This is illustrated as an example in OP.All of the matter and energy from the big bang is all the matter and energy there will ever be. There can’t be something from nothing when everything that’s ever going to be is already here. Conservation of mass.
That is not correct. Quantum fluctuations arising from a quantum vacuum is not “nothing”. Quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. There are energies in the quantum vacuum. These energies are “something”. They have existence. Quantum vacuum is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. But that is not “nothing”.No. Quantum fluctuation intrinsically exists regardless whether there is a universe, time, space, etc.
And if I don’t take the “Big Bang” for granted but seek better models that do not rely on the problem of “dark matter”, where space is not a vacuum, where there is an edge of the universe. We do not know the Big Bang, we invented it as a model and we then believed it with no proof, and therefore cannot consider alternates.The example is obviously our universe. We know that in Big Bang
So how did Cesium 137 came into existence? Why should the irregularity of its decay got to do with having a cause or not? As argued by William Craig,This is proved scientifically. Consider the case of decay of Cesium 137. The decay is completely irregular. Something which is completely irregular in its nature cannot have a cause.
No there is no extra matter or energy all that can happen is a change of form. The sum of all there is is constant; there will never be more or less.The quantities which are conserves are mass and energy. So we can have extra matter with expense of negative energy, gravitational energy. This is illustrated as an example in OP.
If there was no cause you’d not be able to establish a half life or model it any way. You’d expect it to be truly random, not fit any probability curve.Half life is of course is not irregular. What is irregular is decay of single atom.
Quantum vacuum by definition is an abstract entity with lowest possible energy which is zero in our case.That is not correct. Quantum fluctuations arising from a quantum vacuum is not “nothing”.
Quantum vacuum is vacuum state. There is nothing in vacuum state. Please read here.Quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence.
There is nothing in quantum vacuum.There are energies in the quantum vacuum. These energies are “something”. They have existence. Quantum vacuum is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. But that is not “nothing”.
That is not a correct interpretation of what I said. I said that you could have something out of nothing if the sum of energy related to different properties of something is zero.And in your other post, the mere sum of positive and negative elements even if they average out to zero, does not mean “nothing”. The mere existence of such elements already tells you there is existence of such distinct but opposite elements and not “nothing” .
The problem of dark matter is related to standard model and not Big Bang idea.And if I don’t take the “Big Bang” for granted but seek better models that do not rely on the problem of “dark matter”, where space is not a vacuum, where there is an edge of the universe. We do not know the Big Bang, we invented it as a model and we then believed it with no proof, and therefore cannot consider alternates.
I gave this example just as an evidence for quantum fluctuation. I didn’t claim that Cesium atom came into existence.So how did Cesium 137 came into existence?
Well, then you need to find a random cause in atom. There is not such a thing in atom. An atom is imply a set of electrons and nucleons.Why should the irregularity of its decay got to do with having a cause or not?
We are not talking about quantum mechanical laws which describe the motion of a particle but quantum fluctuation.What you can get at most from quantum mechanical laws for the radiation in an atom is the **probability **of having a decay and not the exact time in which the decay happens.As argued by William Craig,
The motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to this principle. As Smith himself admits, these considerations “at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x’s position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles”
reasonablefaith.org/the-caused-beginning-of-the-universe-a-response-to-quentin-smith
That is what I said.No there is no extra matter or energy all that can happen is a change of form.
Of course, unless there is a quantum fluctuation.The sum of all there is is constant; there will never be more or less.
We don’t really know how quantum mechanics leads to a estimation of the probability function related to the decay random process but there is no doubt that decay process is an uncaused random process.If there was no cause you’d not be able to establish a half life or model it any way.
I think you are mixing things. There is a probability function for any random process which the former can be obtained from a relative large number of random process.You’d expect it to be truly random, not fit any probability curve.
That is not correct. An atom is made of electrons and nucleons. There is an interaction between the particles and that is all. There is nothing random in the first glance. Randomness is a property of quantum world.The ion itself still serves as a cause of the decay, anyway.
I didn’t say so. What I say is that something can give something which it doesn’t have provided that the sums of the properties of something, the later, cancels each other out. As simple as this: 1+(-1)=0.The premise of this thread is completely incorrect.
It violates one of the first principles of Philosophy: the Principle of Sufficient Reason.
The Principle of Sufficient Reason states that the existence of a thing must be accountable within the thing itself or by some other thing.
Basically, something cannot give what it doesn’t already have.
Well, we have an argument against that.Therefore, “nothing”, which is the “absence of anything”, cannot give existence because it doesn’t have existence. It cannot give rise to something when nothing is the “absence of anything”.
I think you need to read all thread thoroughly again. Especially my discussion with Wesrock and Eric.None of the arguments STT has proposed are logically or philosophically valid, and so are not compelling.