What is at the threshold of existence?

[Butch]

There is a boundary between nothing and something, and obviously the existence of our universe demonstrates the boundary has been crossed, but what sort of entity exists at that threshold?

Edited July 11, 2021 by Butch

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

There is a boundary between nothing and something

Is there, though?

[Butch]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

Is there, though?

It is a strange concept, but certainly there is an ultimately primal entity which defines existence? Absolute nothing is a strange concept, hard to get ones head around.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Butch said:

certainly there is an ultimately primal entity which defines existence?

There is literally nothing certain about that. 

4 minutes ago, Butch said:

Absolute nothing is a strange concept, hard to get ones head around

Agreed, but we are not certain this is the most accurate way to describe what came before the BB

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Butch said:

Absolute nothing is a strange concept, hard to get ones head around.

And so far as we know, only a concept, and not something physically achievable. So no barrier exists.

[StringJunky]

The only way I can think of that is quantized and sub-quantized, i.e. Standard Model particles and single virtual particles. virtual particles aren't individually measurable AFAIK.

[Butch]

26 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The only way I can think of that is quantized and sub-quantized, i.e. Standard Model particles and single virtual particles. virtual particles aren't individually measurable AFAIK.

First time I have encountered the term "virtual particle" can you educate me? Are we talking point properties?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And so far as we know, only a concept, and not something physically achievable. So no barrier exists.

Not a barrier, a border... not a border as in a line, a border between "is" and "is not'...  If you are a "big bang" believer, what existed before the big bang? Before time and space... that kind of nothingness... what primal difference defines existence?

Edited July 11, 2021 by Butch

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, Butch said:

 

Not a barrier, a border... not a border as in a line, a border between "is" and "is not'... 

No such border exists, if you only have the “is”

21 minutes ago, Butch said:

If you are a "big bang" believer, what existed before the big bang? Before time and space... that kind of nothingness... what primal difference defines existence?

I have no idea. What’s north of the north pole? 

[Butch]

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

No such border exists, if you only have the “is”

I have no idea. What’s north of the north pole? 

We have the concept of nothing... and that is something.

North is a direction in 3 dimensional space... much more than nothing.

[joigus]

11 hours ago, Butch said:

There is a boundary between nothing and something,

So how do you know both concepts, nothing and something really make sense, as mutually exclusive categories?

Perhaps nothing and something, assuming they make sense, are interpenetrating, or implicating each other in some kind of circularity: There is nothingness in every somethingness (absence of a concrete substance that we can pin down as 'the thing in itself' --Kant-- in every observation we make). And also, maybe, there is somethingness in every nothingness (some non-removable features even after you remove every observable aspect).

Can you guarantee that that 'nothing' and that 'something' are amenable to the application of such a thing as a 'boundary', so one is 'here', and the other is 'there'?

Or maybe that boundary refers to logic, and not space? The concept of boundary seems to imply space.

 

[Butch]

12 minutes ago, joigus said:

So how do you know both concepts, nothing and something really make sense, as mutually exclusive categories?

Perhaps nothing and something, assuming they make sense, are interpenetrating, or implicating each other in some kind of circularity: There is nothingness in every somethingness (absence of a concrete substance that we can pin down as 'the thing in itself' --Kant-- in every observation we make). And also, maybe, there is somethingness in every nothingness (some non-removable features even after you remove every observable aspect).

Can you guarantee that that 'nothing' and that 'something' are amenable to the application of such a thing as a 'boundary', so one is 'here', and the other is 'there'?

Or maybe that boundary refers to logic, and not space? The concept of boundary seems to imply space.

 

Very well expressed! If there were nothing there would be no concept of it, for the concept to exist there must be something!

Boundary probably is not the correct term...