Suppose that for all purposes, no matter what you believe in,

Just to try and consider the concept of 'nothing' is to meet the limits of human thought. There is nothing useful which can be gained by trying to extrapolate from the idea of nothing when we simply can't contextualise it or understand it in any way.

In b4 mathematics.

>I'm not knowledgeable in physics

then the first thing you need to educate yourself about is the difference between physics and philosophy. your question is philosophy, it is not something that science aims to or is even capable of answering.

>>8441132
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsGYRArH_w

>>8441345
Why are you on /sci/?

File: image.jpg (50KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 850x400px

>>8441132
>I'm not knowledgeable in physics, so that's the best I can express myself, sorry for my lack of actual knowledge

You could shut up? Did that strike you at all?

>>8441345
>>8441452

> this is what /sci/ has become

shouldnt be faggots be sucking each other off in an IQ thread or something?

although you dont deserve 100% of the blame, the stupid fucking xkdc (whatever initials) comics ruined this board too

>>8441345
origins of the universe and what that means for current theories is a very active area of research in physics

sure OP is just some guy who watched a popsci video that had no science in it and is asking a relatively ill posed question, but regardless, the topic is a legitimate scientific discipline

File: 1463925467352.gif (1001KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 640x480px

>>8441395

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

> The book has been widely panned by physicists and philosophers alike, despite being a popular success.

> In a review for The New York Times, the philosopher of science and physicist David Albert said the book failed to live up to its title, and he criticized Krauss for dismissing concerns about his misuse of the term nothing.

> Krauss responded in an interview published in The Atlantic calling Albert “moronic” and dismissing the philosophy of science as worthless.

>>8441345

> your question is philosophy

So, do people just pretend that a proposed problem is not real, sweep it under philosophy/pseudoscience, cover their ears and stick a cock into their mouths and hope that nobody tenured looks into the issue?

>>8441132
I'm sorry but why can't you start with everything and take what you want from it?

File: insufficient_data.jpg (728KB, 1024x805px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 1024x805px

>>8441463
Not that these guys aren't being assholes, but there are problems that are not within the purview of science, despite being real problems.

Though, this isn't one of them, as, so far as we can tell, nothing doesn't exist. It's like "forever" - it's a purely human construct that isn't a thing that we can test.

Science can't answer questions about non-existent objects, as you can't test the results. Testability is a requisite for something to be in the empirical realm of science and not philosophy. Now, there are fields of "science" that attempt to do this from time to time, in hopes that the resulting mathematical constructs could one day be tested, but that's dancing on the edge. This is a bit beyond that edge. Science can't tell you about qualia, the nature of consciousness (beyond medical definitions), nor whether Superman can beat Goku. That's what philosophy and comi-con is for.

Science can't be used to answer everything, and there are some questions that simply cannot be answered definitely by any methodology. Welcome to the realm of human limitations.