Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 02:12 (3441 days ago) @ David Turell

To educate further on the idiocy of nothingness being unstable lets look at a favorite philosopher of mine, Ed Feser:-http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-part-of-nothing-dont-you.html#more-"So what's the point of all this ado about nothing? You know what the point is: To try to show that physics alone can explain the existence of the universe. Hence the key line of the piece: “Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.” But read in a straightforward way, this is just nonsense, for reasons of the sort already given: If this so-called “nothingness” has a “nature” and “does” things, then it isn't really “nothingness” at all that we're talking about. And of course, the article and the physicists it quotes don't really mean “nothingness” in a straightforward way in the first place. They mean a “roiling broth” governed by the laws of quantum theory, entropy, etc. and that not only isn't nothing, but just is part of the universe and therefore just is part of the explanandum and therefore does nothing whatsoever to explain that explanandum. "-Just as I explained previously. Read the whole article. It is a priceless putdown of substituting quantum nothingness and saying it isn't something. Any answer Romansh?