First off, the question is oddly worded. Do I believe something that might be true but the proof of which has not yet been discovered? Well, no. At least not that way.

On the other hand, the idea is certainly not ruled out by any current observations, so it could well be the case.

What we do know is that quantum fluctuations happen all the time as the general background to the universe. At no small level either. I have seen several calculations on the matter but quite possibly as much as 10^100 electron volts per cubic meter. You don't notice it for reasons that are not dissimilar to the fact that one does not notice air. Even so, it is quite real.

With stuff constantly happening on that level, is it so hard to contemplate that once in a great long while, a universe forms? Well, since we don't really know just what has to happen for a universe to get started. In fact, it is possible that it is constantly happening. Either at places so distant that they are not normally going to be in causal contact or because of the general idea of starter universes being non-viable for one reason or another.

Thanks for all the responses guys and yes to the first post i understand what you mean

Anyone look at the laurence kruass vid yet ?

Whoa!! That you are!! I think I understood what you've said but I don't buy it... it is way n-dimentional for me to grasp... It's a valid thought for me, though.

Yes, yes... I'm not an American and I'm not saying you're wrong also. What I say is that there are somethings that are beyond human comprehension. So that not even the best minds here can even envision. Metaphysics or even advanced mathematics reach the state of speculation sometimes. What is the truth anyway...?

In reality my beliefs have similarities to yours but I have no hard evidence for them... only some "facts" that seem to fit my opinions. Some of my ultimate opinions are not easily falsifiable.

I've seen the Lawrence Krauss video and I am graduating with an undergraduate physics degree this year. This is the best theory existing for what the beginning of the universe looked like. Scientists can't actually create a vacuum, only something near to it, because the energy required to create a vacuum is enough energy for particle and anti-particle pairs to form (essentially E=mc2) which in turn fills up the vacuum (incidentally, it is also why there is a limit to the speed of light in a vacuum). Now scientists are trying to understand which of the many asymmetric processes in particle physics is responsible for that fact that are universe is dominated by particles over anti-particles (rather than equal proportions). So the natural state of the universe is there to be something, rather than nothing, and for that something to be rather randomly determined. The rules of physics explain why these particles form stable atoms and how we can get things like stars and planets.

Some comments mentioned string theory and manifolds and higher dimensions and other fantastic supplement to particle theory. The quantum-mechanical origin of the universe from nothing is not dependent on accepting these particularly fantastic version of particle theory: from what we do know for sure we get a universe from nothing. What these fantastic supplements attempt to do, among other things, is serve to explain why these particular rules of physics are the ones that exist, as opposed to a hypothetical rules of physics that might not create a universe from nothing. I am hesitant to subscribe to any one particular supplement to the standard model until there is more empirical data to back up the difference. I will say, however, these theoretical speculation is important for directing which experiments should be conducted as well as developing mathematical tools which simplify the data that we have.

Is there any way how to say something, so other people DON'T lose interest in the discussion? It's qutie troublesome, really. People would call me discussion-killer if that wouldn't involve continuing in the discussion.