Stephen hawkings has recently argued as to how the universe can come out of nothing, but to my mind his argument is rather circular and it's not provable. I understand why it has to exist, but how can zero exist, if zero is nothing, then nothing is something witch means that zero cant exist, i have seen similar questions but i still don't get it, he Throughout the history of time, it has been almost everyone’s intuition that something cannot come from nothing That intuition is so strong that many can’t even imagine this to be false 5 krauss' definition of nothing is the result of the allergy contemporary physicists get from philosophy The philosopher david albert posted a crushing criticism of the book in response and started a terrible fight
Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Is nothing really nothing or is it something Like is 0 something or nothing And if nothing is something then would it be right to say that if nothing existed, something existed How is zero different from nothing Should i travel beyond earth's atmosphere i do not travel into zero but nothingness
I know there are philosophies that state that reality is a simulation etc Yet even though nothing is something, something is something in itself, and therefore can not be nothing This could also apply to can something be anything (or everything)?. The “nothing’” is the text itself It only “becomes real”, in the manner of descartes, who proposed that an idea never amounted to much until someone turned into a “machine”, in short entered it into a positive relation to ‘physis’. If they knew nothing, then they obviously wouldn't have known that they know the fact that they do not know anything at all
It looks like the statement is true and false at the same time I have never taken any philosophy classes so forgive my ineptness but i thought i'd.
WATCH
