Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by akabrutus, May 2, 2020.
Can you explain what you mean by something from something, when neither exists in the first place?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It's the most logical . ( nothing is irrelavent )
From post #156
From post #152 , Write4U
"Something" from "Nothing" is more logical than "Irreducible Complexity from Nothing"...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And the confusion continues.
Obviously , since something from something makes no sense to you . But nothing to something does .
Mathematics needs this nothing to something , nonsesnical concept in order keep this erroneous nonsense that mathematics is the foundation upon which the physical Universe exists .
you mean something from something that came from something from something? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ahh river, fair dinkum, you're a riot!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In the end, something [the universe] from nothing is all that is possible, if one simply redefines nothing. And as I said, Krauss has put that suggestion quite eloquently. Just because you fail to understand [as you generally do with any science applications] does not automatically mean its wrong. It means you do not understand and are ignorant. You need any further help? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Something from Something is all that is possible .
And that final something is likely what we call the quantum foam, and is possibley the only "nothing" that can exist, and in this instant, has for eternity. But at this time river ol matey, still speculative.
Just as is most of your statements.
I didn't say "Something from Nothing", did I?
From post #152 ,
You're right and I have edited to correct what I omitted.
My position is ; "Something physical emerging from something Mathematical", an a priori Universal Potential.
You should like that, river. This approaches the concept of "Agency". But in a mathematical universe the functional mechanics are in accordance with Mathematical Agency, a wholly independent ordering system.
In a multiverse, each universe may have it's own inherent mathematical value potentials, but the algebraic mathematical functions must be the same for all potential universes.
They are purely logical universal functions.
Which is wrong . Entirely and completely .
The physical reality is the essence of mathematics .
Without Physical Reality there is nothing upon which mathematics can grasp onto .
Mathematics doesn't exist in empty space .
Nothing at all wrong with that anyway. All one needs to do is redefine "nothing" as the quantum foam.
I have yet to meet anyone that can tell me what "nothing" that we generally define, looks like anyway.
A great read..."A Universe from Nothing"
Yes you did .
Highlighted there is everything wrong with this .
Not at all river...but anyway as James keeps continually asking you, please give a link or reference supporting your claim. Or is this simply an exercise in gum flapping...you know gum flapping, saying and making up whatever comes into your mind Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But I'll wait for your references.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"A Universe From Nothing"
Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is a Canadian-American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is a Professor of Physics, Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration, and Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. He is the author of several bestselling books, including The Physics of Star Trek and A Universe from Nothing. He is an advocate of scientific skepticism, science education, and the science of morality.
Krauss received undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics with first class honours at Carleton University, and was awarded a PhD in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. After some time in the Harvard Society of Fellows, he became an assistant professor at Yale University and associate professor. He was named the Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, professor of astronomy, and was chairman of the physics department at Case Western Reserve University for twelve years. In 2006, Krauss led the initiative for the no confidence vote against Case Western Reserve University's president Edward M. Hundert and provost Anderson, which was approved on March 2, 2006 by the College of Arts and Sciences.
In August 2008 he joined the faculty at Arizona State University as Foundation Professor in the School of Earth and Space Exploration and the Department of Physics in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and director of a university initiative, the Origins Project. In 2009 he helped inaugurate this initiative with the Origins Symposium, in which eighty scientists participated and three thousand people attended. He attended and was a speaker at the Beyond Belief symposium in November 2006 and again in October 2008. He also served on Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign science policy committee. In 2008 he was named co-president of the board of sponsors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In 2010 he was elected to the board of directors of the Federation of American Scientists, and in June 2011 it was announced that he would join the professoriate of New College of the Humanities, a private college in London.
OK river, now I understand that nothing more will follow, other then trolling with your usual one liners, while ignoring all the science.
I bid you adieu...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Go argue and troll with yourself.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
A Universe from nothing is never possible . Nothing as being defined as No physical properties , No physical dimensions , length , width and depth , nor movements and can never evolve .
Consider the logical contradiction.
"Something" (an irreducible complexity), emerging from "Something else" (another irreducible complexity).
Thus, you maintain that the further down we deconstruct, there is always another complex something before something complex?
That gets us to "turtles all the way down"? Is that logical?
Yes , No
Just that something will always exist . And has always existed for infinity .
Potential comes in understanding .
Setting the bar a bit high there asking that Write4U Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In line with the thread title though, and avoiding the gobblygook, Space consists of three dimensions, length, breadth, and height. The fourth recognised dimension is time.
This gives us spacetime, being defined as the multi dimensional framework against which we locate events and describe them. This automatically follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant and fixed. Intervals of space and time considered separately are not the same for all observers. and of course in GR gravitation is described in terms of curvature/twisting of this spacetime.
That's about says it all.
Anything above or beyond that, is just speculation and dreaming.
cue: river and some more dreaming. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I was going to stay out of your hair river, but the above isn't that wrong *shock, horror* While still speculating of course, the all existing stuff or whatever, is the quantum foam. So its reasonable to redefine "nothing"as the quantum foam. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And when you start understanding, perhaps [a long London to a brick on shot] perhaps you maybe allowed back into the sciences. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Now you get it pad , congratulations .
Except spacetime is neither curved nor bent .
Separate names with a comma.