For my own benefit I would like to clarify the position.
1. In scientific circles “nothing” means “something” unless it is “absolute nothing”?
Yes and let me expand it.
Normal nothing is the same as it to layman it is the lack of something that might be expected. You walk into a room and say it has nothing in it the universe didn't stop in the room and it likely contains air, dust, germs just not the usual stuff you expected.
So in scientifically we would say something like nothing can only be applied to contained set of parameters which you know the limits on.
What does that mean, I have to know that something exists to be able to test for it's inverse or nothing otherwise there is a big problem and the classic argument goes like this
If GOD exists he hates flying pigs so no flying pigs will exist. We tested all pigs on the planet and found none could fly therefore GOD exists and it is scientifically proven.
Do you see the problem the test collapses in it's own logic because it's setup to test of absence of something that doesn't exist.
Something exists (your existence proves that) so therefore the inverse is absolutely nothing. The problem is you will never be able to test absolutely nothing scientifically because of the problem above you can only test for the absence of something within known limits. Absolute nothing has no limits there are infinite tests required on infinite properties. So absolutely nothing is very different from nothing.
It's the flying pig scenario
2. The “something” from which virtual particles emerge is classed as “nothing”, but not “absolute nothing”?
Correct ... it is a nothing in the sense if you sum the bits they cancel out. It is actually a large amount of energy popping into and out of our existence and that is hardly nothing.
3. If there had ever been “absolute nothing”, there would be nothing now; but not all scientists agree with this?
I won't say all scientists we are a varied lot but it is very hard to fly the argument because science is about logic at right at the start you are going to have a big issue.
You have absolutely nothing, 1 fraction of time or some parameter later you have a quantity x whatever that may be .... doesn't matter how much we advance science that is a drop dead problem for science you are never going to be able to construct a logical argument.
4. There are physicists who maintain that “something” could have come from “absolute nothing” because the causality which we observe in the Universe might not apply outside the Universe?
This is the attempt to get around the logic issue. It sets up is that our logic doesn't apply in a wider universe so we are a logical universe inside a larger universe made up of different states of logical universes. So the solution to the problem is attempted by breaking the logic.
Do you see the issues?
Think about boundaries somehow the universes must coexist why don't the chaotic universes break into our universe, why is it respecting our boundaries?
Does this mean you can have part logical and part chaotic universe? Our universe seems to be completely logical so it sets up a very strong anthropic principle.
You setup the same problem with a new parameter called logic or chaos, so you just regress the problem to a new parameter, you haven't solved anything.
You could argue we just haven't seen the chaotic universe breaking into our ordered universe but we then have a flying pig again
So some scientists believe this but it has the same justification under it as the scientists that believe in god.
5. There are also physicists who maintain that “something” could have come from “absolute nothing” if we accept that God exists, and created everything”?
Yes that is perfectly fine it just means science is the study of laws of GOD.
