On: Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning

[senectus1]

the more i think about this the more wrong i think you are.

You're assuming that "nothingness" isn't an impediment to creation of something... it may very well be the ultimate barrier to something being created.

We'll probably never know, but at the end of the day until we can devise a way to define and measure "nothingness" we cant setup any experiments (thought or otherwise) to develop theories from/about it.

[naringas → senectus1]

but nothingness in fact isn't an impediment to creation because nothingness just isn't. it's not an impediment nor a boon nor anything at all.

and how can you concieve of a way to measure "nothingness" when by definition you would be trying to measure that which isn't there to be measured?

have you ever seen zero of anything? how would you measure that?

[senectus1 → naringas]

I agree that conceiving of nothingness is hard and as yet unsolved.

but I fail to see how this is related to your first statement. >but nothingness in fact isn't an impediment to creation because nothingness just isn't.

Again the statement that nothingness isn't an impediment, literally can not be proven. Because of that, you must leave open the potential that pure nothingness might be not only an impediment to creation but it might also be the ultimate impediment to creation of something.

We dont know what the properties of nothingness holds in our universe or how our universe of stuff behaves around nothingness.

[naringas → senectus1]

> We dont know what the properties of nothingness holds in our universe or how our universe of stuff behaves around nothingness.

nothingness holds no properties.

I think it's more useful to ponder how can we even talk about it to discuss its precise nature. which it doesn't have, so is it kind of recursive? i.e its nature is its 'own' non-self? ugh..