What is "Nothing"?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Jim

And what we do have is empirical evidence for all physical events that have been empirically verified to date, for which “all” have a beginning as well as a cause.

Citation required.

[Jim]

I could be wrong, but I think it’s hard to imagine that if there was something of the sort the media wouldn’t have been all over it. The only thing that I’ve ever heard of as a possibility of not having a cause is in QM, but that’s theoretical in nature and not able to be accessed directly for empirical confirmation. I haven’t ever heard any naturalists mention anything of the sort. Did I maybe miss something somewhere further down the road?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

Was World War II a single event or many events? Did it begin with the German invasion of Poland, or did it begin several years earlier with hostilities between Japan and China? Was it caused by decisions that Hitler made? Or was it caused by unreasonable conditions imposed by the settlement of World War I?

These sorts of questions are very difficult to settle. Assertions, such that every event has a beginning and a cause, just seem too simplistic.

[Jim]

@nwrickert

Was World War II a single event or many events? Did it begin with the German invasion of Poland, or did it begin several years earlier with hostilities between Japan and China? Was it caused by decisions that Hitler made? Or was it caused by unreasonable conditions imposed by the settlement of World War I?

These sorts of questions are very difficult to settle. Assertions, such that every event has a beginning and a cause, just seem too simplistic.

Oh. I didn’t have those kinds of physical events in mind. I was thinking about a physical event specifically involving a new instance of physical existence. At least that is what seems relevant to the discussion anyhow.

But even so, I don’t think the events you mentioned would be without a beginning or a cause. Only that the beginning and cause would be a little hard to pin down. But in regards to existence, which is what the discussion is centered around, that doesn’t seem to be a problem.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Jim

I was thinking about a physical event specifically involving a new instance of physical existence.

Okay, that helps.

Now what about a flower. Does it come into existence when the flower bud opens? Or when the bud begins to grow? Or when the plant starts to grow from a seedling or some other method? (This leads to many “which came first, the chicken or the egg” types of question).

[Jim]

@nwrickert

Now what about a flower. Does it come into existence when the flower bud opens? Or when the bud begins to grow? Or when the plant starts to grow from a seedling or some other method? (This leads to many “which came first, the chicken or the egg” types of question).

When something begins to exist is an interesting discussion and something that I understand philosophers have discussed for ages. From what I recall, I think Aristotelian thought has some interesting things to say about that question. But what’s really at issue here is not so much when, but did it begin to exist, and did it have a cause.

And if at any point in time it didn’t exist then, as far as I can tell, the answer would have to be yes, there had to be a beginning. And I think science has sufficiently established the cause and effect relationship for physical reality as far as what is accessible to be directly confirmed empirically. So going by that I would say the answer would have to be yes, there had to be a cause as well.