On 8/16/2017 at 4:12 AM, beecee said:

That's simply adding speculation. Logically one can ask, so where did this entitiy originate?      The only reasonable correct answer is that we know nothing about the true nature of things before 10-43 seconds. Perhaps again, our definition of nothing needs reappraisal.                     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU

 

It has no origin and it exist eternally. It is a necessary entity.

This could explain: 

From:http://listverse.com/2014/11/26/10-reasons-why-our-universe-is-a-virtual-reality/

Material under copyright removed by moderator - too much to be considered fair use

1 minute ago, Area54 said:

Well that's good, but sixteen minutes ago you postes this " Simulation theory is the actual physics theory "

 

Let me rather say "Simulation theory, could be the actual physics theory."

Read Whitworth's points 

Sorry for my carelessness that I quoted improper quotes or links.

I admitted that it does not explain but I provided the second link or Brian Whitworths points.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

So do you have any evidence? Otherwise it is not science.

From: https://www.nature.com/news/simulations-back-up-theory-that-universe-is-a-hologram-1.14328

A team of physicists has provided some of the clearest evidence yet that our Universe could be just one big projection.

In 1997, theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena proposed¹ that an audacious model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin, vibrating strings could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics. The mathematically intricate world of strings, which exist in nine dimensions of space plus one of time, would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity.

Maldacena's idea thrilled physicists because it offered a way to put the popular but still unproven theory of strings on solid footing — and because it solved apparent inconsistencies between quantum physics and Einstein's theory of gravity. It provided physicists with a mathematical Rosetta stone, a 'duality', that allowed them to translate back and forth between the two languages, and solve problems in one model that seemed intractable in the other and vice versa (see 'Collaborative physics: String theory finds a bench mate'). But although the validity of Maldacena's ideas has pretty much been taken for granted ever since, a rigorous proof has been elusive.

In two papers posted on the arXiv repository, Yoshifumi Hyakutake of Ibaraki University in Japan and his colleagues now provide, if not an actual proof, at least compelling evidence that Maldacena’s conjecture is true.

In one paper², Hyakutake computes the internal energy of a black hole, the position of its event horizon (the boundary between the black hole and the rest of the Universe), its entropy and other properties based on the predictions of string theory as well as the effects of so-called virtual particles that continuously pop into and out of existence (see 'Astrophysics: Fire in the Hole!'). In the other³, he and his collaborators calculate the internal energy of the corresponding lower-dimensional cosmos with no gravity. The two computer calculations match.

“It seems to be a correct computation,” says Maldacena, who is now at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey and who did not contribute to the team's work.

Regime change

The findings “are an interesting way to test many ideas in quantum gravity and string theory”, Maldacena adds. The two papers, he notes, are the culmination of a series of articles contributed by the Japanese team over the past few years. “The whole sequence of papers is very nice because it tests the dual [nature of the universes] in regimes where there are no analytic tests.”

“They have numerically confirmed, perhaps for the first time, something we were fairly sure had to be true, but was still a conjecture — namely that the thermodynamics of certain black holes can be reproduced from a lower-dimensional universe,” says Leonard Susskind, a theoretical physicist at Stanford University in California who was among the first theoreticians to explore the idea of holographic universes.

Neither of the model universes explored by the Japanese team resembles our own, Maldacena notes. The cosmos with a black hole has ten dimensions, with eight of them forming an eight-dimensional sphere. The lower-dimensional, gravity-free one has but a single dimension, and its menagerie of quantum particles resembles a group of idealized springs, or harmonic oscillators, attached to one another.

Nevertheless, says Maldacena, the numerical proof that these two seemingly disparate worlds are actually identical gives hope that the gravitational properties of our Universe can one day be explained by a simpler cosmos purely in terms of quantum theory.

Nature

 

doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14328

or you can visit this :http://listverse.com/2014/11/26/10-reasons-why-our-universe-is-a-virtual-reality/

22 hours ago, Strange said:

It is also explained by actual physics so we don't really need these science fiction stories. 

Simulation theory is the actual physics theory.

Quantum entanglement is explained if we are in a simulation. You see two separated particles even they are billions of ly away still interact with each other faster than the speed of light.Why is this so? It seems that there are invisible wires connecting them. This mystery is explained when we are living in a simulation. Space is only an illusion and actually there is no space which separates those particles. Imagine in a computer screen. If you click something in the right of screen, it will instantly affect something at the left side of screen like the scenario in playing games.

On 8/5/2017 at 0:48 AM, Bender said:

Why an intelligence? You are simply moving the problem. It answers nothing.

Just think about this. If there is no intelligence, the entity (materialistic)  that cause the universe, has a property and thus the property question still arises- Why that is it's property?  which denotes volition. It can't be answered because there is no other entity that cause that entity because that entity is the cause.If there are any then the entity that cause that entity must have also a cause and infinite regression will follow. This is because those entities has a property and so still subject to property question which requires volition. On the other hand intelligence properly answers the property question-"Why that is the property and not the other way around?". That question is asked that way because there are other possibilities of what our universe would look like and why this property exist instead of those other possibilities. The cause should be an entity that can cater all those possibilities and able to made one of those possibilities to exist which denotes volition. Just think about this- "What entity that can cater  possibilities and able to chose a specific possibility like our universe?" Imagine all possibilities can exist but why this specific possibility exist-the universe? If that entity is the multiverse which caters all possibilities, then the property question still arises-"Why multiverse and not the other way around?" So it is not the proper explanation. It still begs the property question which denotes volition because multiverse is inanimate which is not able to decide or choose. Now, let's move to intelligence. Intelligence is able to cater infinite possibilities. Like for example we think of the best island. There are infinite imagination of what a best island would be. Thus intelligence can cater all possibilities. Intelligence can also answer "Why multiverse and not the other way around?" because intelligence is conscious and has volition and avoid infinite regression. Inanimate entities has no volition. Thus intelligence properly answers the property question.

I am not preaching here.I'm just explaining my property argument.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. If you need clarifications, just ask me..

Next let me deliver my Property argument:

1. Everything that exist has a property.

2. Every property has an explanation for why it has that specific property.

3. The universe has a property.

4. Therefore, there is an explanation why our universe has that specific property.

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You don't get to make such a claim without providing citations of some of these alleged studies. Please do so. 

 

I will do my best:

First, I will recommend William Lane Craig's apologetics debates on youtube. Next scienctific studies like Vilenkin's latest conclusion that indeed universe is not past eternal but must begin I finite time ago and my argument that I thought for months- the property argument.

Let's discuss first WLC's points that God's existence best explains the data of human experience such as philosophical, scientific, experiential, moral, etc.

Just watch. Don't judge first

Here's the video of a debate of WLC vs. Kevin Scharp:

or this video:

and next video:

11 minutes ago, DrP said:

How could anyone possibly know? There is no evidence for or against that...  although plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest not.

Also, although it's not my field, I don't think anyone knows what there was before tbb so to say it came from nothing is just guessing or speculating or misunderstanding or misleading.

Ok in order to answer that question let's philosophize:

There is a belief that we can't know the actual nothing. Ok, in ultimate reality there is actually no actual nothing. Just think about this: How can nothing produce something? Quantum fluctuations are not nothing it is something. 

Christianity. Philosophers and scientists now found the data on their studies and research well-favored to Christianity. Brother/sister, take a look at the data or studies conducted by philosophers and scientists, they somehow favored the existence of God. It seems that some humans go in assuming that something is not true by not looking at the evidences. 

Are you agree that science and certain religion could be reconciled? 

From the idea above I can infer that:

There was nothing before the bigbang and I will call that nothing as materialistic nothing. I call that as materialistic nothing because it is the origination of spacetime reality. So in order for this spacetime reality to originate from nothing, there should be an entity that is outside spacetime and does transcend spacetime.

Nothingness is somewhat already proven by modern cosmology that the universe originate from nothing. One of it's major evidence is the cosmic microwave background radiation which was discovered. So we can hold the idea that there is really nothingness. Space-time itself originated.

22 hours ago, zapatos said:

No, it's not. It is the definition of 'nothing' that you are creating.

In the context of what is in my pocket, 'nothing' allows for air and lint.

If there is no real or actual nothing, our universe must be eternal and several unanswered questions will follow like " Why our universe is the way it is?". This is the question of the property of the universe. The universe itself can't answer why it has that specific property. Just think about it. Let's have an analogy. You see a ball. You want to ask, Why that is the property of the ball being round? The ball itself can't provide the answer for it's roundness. It must require an external explanation. It could be liken  to our universe because our universe has a property. Why this is the property of the universe. The universe itself can't answer the question just like the ball. Just think about it and you will realized. Now let's move. What could be the probable reason for the property of the universe being that way? Why this the property of the universe and not the other way around? What's the answer, multiverse? If multiverse then a question still arises, Why multiverse and not the other way around? And it will only result into infinity of explanation because no matter what materialistic explanation the property question still arises. It seems to me that the best explanation is intelligence. This the property of the universe because intelligence decided or chooses it to exist. There are infinite possibilities for what the property of the universe should be but WHY this is the property of the universe we have? Therefore a choosing agent is required to answer this begging question. 

This is  my conviction guys that I want to share to you. I am not dellusioned. I am searching the truth and this is what I found. I am just want to clarify that I am not preaching here. I am just discussing my philosophical arguments.

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If you didn't want me to answer the question about the nature of 'nothing', then why is the title of your post "what is nothing", and why is the first sentence of your post "what is nothing"?

If you've already defined it to your liking and don't wish to hear alternative ideas, then I don't think this thread is going anywhere.

No, this is the real definition of nothing. The best possible definition of nothing.

What I need is your arguments so I will respond to your arguments.

If there is no actual or real nothing, then quantum fluctuations is not really nothing, it is something. It must therefore exist eternally because nothing can't produce something.

It seems to me also that it is your assumption that there is no real or actual nothing. How are you sure of that?

Just now, zapatos said:

"Nothing" is context dependent. There is no 'real or actual' nothing.

If I say I have nothing in my pocket, I am not wrong just because there is air and lint there.

If I am seeking a treasure and find a chest containing old socks, it is still accurate to tell my investors that the chest contained nothing.

If you want to discuss 'nothing', it is your responsibility to define it.

I already defined what is the actual nothing.

What is nothing? I mean the real or actual  nothing. Quantum fluctuations is somewhat not nothing but something. It is pseudo-nothing. Actual nothing lacks space-time, matter, quantum states, laws of physics and information, -completely nothing. In other words, actual nothing can never create something. Any counter arguments is very welcome. Let's discuss it here for the accumulation of understanding on the reality which we exist.

20 minutes ago, Manticore said:

And what would you do when it disappears over the horizon? Are you going to run after it with your little transmitter?

There are hitech ways on how to control this like radio signals or gps satellites for guidance..

I saw a youtube video of RC planes. What if engineers would invent RC real airplanes for transportation? What is your view in this suggestion?

Thank you. I am now registered to other forum. 

1 minute ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

Sorry, I edited my reply above. Your account here does have an email address associated with it. 

That's okay.

1 minute ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

Randolphin, your account certainly has an email address associated with it. I am confused though. Your account is already activated, so why do you need to find the activation email?

I know I already activated in this forum, what I mean is in other forums. And as what I have said, I'm just autoactivated here by my twitter account.

Just now, Strange said:

You mean you just enter a random email address?

That is NOT going to work.

Ahh, so I can use my old gmail to register in a certain forum and it will work?