A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

Xelasnave.1947 said:
Good morning I hope you survived the downpour , I did.
Click to expand...
Just! Was late picking up the better half due to road flooding....
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Thank you for your well considered reply.
Click to expand...
And thank you also, although I disagree.
Sure there's nothing wrong in saying we don't know, and I havn't dismissed that entirely......I'm just saying that we do have reason to believe the something from nothing aspect is viable, despite it sometimes sounding "religious"
The beauty of science is not being afraid of that fact, the same as having to drop other intuitive aspects such as the absolute nature of space and time, and again, spacetime expansion.
Sure we observe it expanding [cosmological redshift] but how and why are questions in the same vogue as something from nothing.
Take it easy! ;)
 
paddoboy said:
I'm just saying that we do have reason to believe the something from nothing aspect is viable,
Click to expand...
I understand but if for no other reason than showing how members can disagree without one stalking the other I disagree.
If we look to quantum fluctuations etc we imply something which is far remove d from nothing.
However I respect your right to hold an opinion so long as you respect the fact that I am always right.
I again thank you for all your ops.
I also applaud your ability to resist the baits offered by others driven to stalk you.
You have proved to be the better man and deserve congratulations.
I so enjoy your posts please keep it up.
Could be a long wet day.

Critical advice...look into shingle vaccination if you have had chicken pox. There is a waiting list.
I got it two weeks ago not good so look into it...you are at the age where it can happen.

Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
I understand but if for no other reason than showing how members can disagree without one stalking the other I disagree.
If we look to quantum fluctuations etc we imply something which is far remove d from nothing.
However I respect your right to hold an opinion so long as you respect the fact that I am always right.
I again thank you for all your ops.
I also applaud your ability to resist the baits offered by others driven to stalk you.
You have proved to be the better man and deserve congratulations.
I so enjoy your posts please keep it up.
Could be a long wet day.

Critical advice...look into shingle vaccination if you have had chicken pox. There is a waiting list.
I got it two weeks ago not good so look into it...you are at the age where it can happen.

Alex
Click to expand...
Been there, done that! :D with regards to the shingle vacx!
Thanks again.
 
paddoboy said:
A belief based on much logical extrapolation...
Click to expand...
Agree.

paddoboy said:
Even in science, some reasonable faith is needed Dave.
Click to expand...
Agree. But that's a much more moderate stance than you were making previously.

paddoboy said:
I disagree...In actual fact, its simply adding another layer, as per the Sagan video...an infinite omnipotent being?
Click to expand...
Certainly. My point was not that God is a good explanation, but that our speculations about pre-BB are not. Not scientifically.

Sure, there's lots of theoretical work that can be done, but, like string theory (actually, worse than string theory), there's no hope of finding corroboration in the form of evidence. As Ex and Yaz call it, it will be metaphysics.
 
If there really was ever philosophical nothing (Yes, I know that i'm talking about nothing as something but let me just do this without having my head explode) then wouldn't it be defined as that which has no properties. If it has no properties, would that include being governed by laws of logic then the law of non-contradiction does not count, thus nothing can be something.

While something cannot make sense to become nothing, nothing becoming something can happen because otherwise nothing would follow some kind of rule or property.

Sound like something? ;)

But really, what do you think?

I've always heard arguments from physics but what about the negation of the concept from philosophy. Nothing can't be something, not even itself.

It's a useless concept to begin with, i've always saw it as meaningless in describing reality.
 
Something from nothing is utter nonsense. When Krauss, for 1 example, speaks of nothing, he is not referring to no thing. Quite silly of scientists to say nothing yet not mean no thing.
Quantum fluctuations are something & are caused by something.
If something could come from no thing, there is no reason to think it would happen only once & there is no causality & very many people have wasted much time & effort trying to find reasons & causes.

<>
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Something from nothing is utter nonsense. When Krauss, for 1 example, speaks of nothing, he is not referring to no thing. Quite silly of scientists to say nothing yet not mean no thing.
Quantum fluctuations are something & are caused by something.
If something could come from no thing, there is no reason to think it would happen only once & there is no causality & very many people have wasted much time & effort trying to find reasons & causes. <>
Click to expand...
I saw that interview and came away with the impression that Krauss was talking about something that does not exist now but can exist in the future.

I visualized an empty lot with no buildings. Then someone builds on that lot and presto, "where there was nothing, there is now a house".

Although in a sense that is a logical argument, I thought he missed the point entirely.
 
Write4U said:
I saw that interview and came away with the impression that Krauss was talking about something that does not exist now but can exist in the future.

I visualized an empty lot with no buildings. Then someone builds on that lot and presto, "where there was nothing, there is now a house".

Although in a sense that is a logical argument, I thought he missed the point entirely.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is like when someone looks into a box & says there's nothing in there.
I hate when people put nothing in quotes. Why say nothing if you do not mean nothing.

<>
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Yes. It is like when someone looks into a box & says there's nothing in there.
I hate when people put nothing in quotes. Why say nothing if you do not mean nothing. <>
Click to expand...
I must admit I am guilty of that, but as English is my second language, I use quotes and stars to indicate words or sentences with some special implication in the context of the topic.
We can use Krauss' perspective as an example of using the word *nothing* out of context.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
Something from nothing is utter nonsense. When Krauss, for 1 example, speaks of nothing, he is not referring to no thing. Quite silly of scientists to say nothing yet not mean no thing.
Quantum fluctuations are something & are caused by something.
If something could come from no thing, there is no reason to think it would happen only once & there is no causality & very many people have wasted much time & effort trying to find reasons & causes.

<>
Click to expand...

Nothing to something , has always been utter nonsense .

It seems only a few understand this , up to now .

The broader the understanding , the broader the Universal understanding the better .

Therefore puts this concept to rest , as an absract concept , to its death . Finally.
 
river said:
Nothing to something , has always been utter nonsense .

It seems only a few understand this , up to now .

The broader the understanding , the broader the Universal understanding the better .

Therefore puts this concept to rest , as an absract concept , to its death . Finally.
Click to expand...

LOL
Sadly, I do not think it will rest in peace for a long time.

(Laughing at only your last sentence).


<>
 
Why do you guys have so much problem with "something from nothing"? It's a possible explanation on the part of Krauss. It's not offered as anything other than a possible explanation.

He is writing for the general public. What is he supposed to call his version of "nothing". It's just a word or concept.

My understanding of "quantum fluctuation" as a possible explanation is that it's something inherent in nature and not something that can be "removed" in all of the various discussions of "nothing".

He is just saying that you can have a vacuum that doesn't appear to have anything in it but that there will still be quantum fluctuations and that that's not something that you can "take out".

The problem with conversations like this (if seems to me) is that we want to speak in everyday terms with their common meaning but apply them to the quantum world but that just doesn't work.

Many aspects of quantum physics defy our everyday "common" sense but that's because our common sense is based on our everyday reality. We aren't of the quantum world so there is no reason to expect that our common sense would apply to that environment.

He is simply positing that it could be the same with quantum fluctuations. This, like all explanations before the Big Bang, is just a hypothesis. Quit referring to it as "science". Science is a process. A theory is the end result of a process. No one is calling "something from nothing" a theory.
 
Seattle said:
Why do you guys have so much problem with "something from nothing"? It's a possible explanation on the part of Krauss. It's not offered as anything other than a possible explanation.

He is writing for the general public. What is he supposed to call his version of "nothing". It's just a word or concept.

My understanding of "quantum fluctuation" as a possible explanation is that it's something inherent in nature and not something that can be "removed" in all of the various discussions of "nothing".

He is just saying that you can have a vacuum that doesn't appear to have anything in it but that there will still be quantum fluctuations and that that's not something that you can "take out".

The problem with conversations like this (if seems to me) is that we want to speak in everyday terms with their common meaning but apply them to the quantum world but that just doesn't work.

Many aspects of quantum physics defy our everyday "common" sense but that's because our common sense is based on our everyday reality. We aren't of the quantum world so there is no reason to expect that our common sense would apply to that environment.

He is simply positing that it could be the same with quantum fluctuations. This, like all explanations before the Big Bang, is just a hypothesis. Quit referring to it as "science". Science is a process. A theory is the end result of a process. No one is calling "something from nothing" a theory.
Click to expand...

In the end , something from nothing is Never , ever possible .

The quantum fluctuations are based on something , quantum has no business being included in this discussion .

The quantum world , has nothing to do with nothing TO something .

Get me seattle ?
 
river said:
In the end , something from nothing is Never , ever possible .

The quantum fluctuations are based on something , quantum has no business being included in this discussion .

The quantum world , has nothing to do with nothing TO something .

Get me seattle ?
Click to expand...
No, I don't "get" you River.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top