.

This was the question: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing".

Quantum mechanics disagree with you.

Please explain how electromagnetism operates differently on Mars than it does on Earth? 

The options are spontaneous existence or infinite regress.

Oh my God, you are a genius. 

I'm not talking about basketballs, but the particles that make up a basketball and absolutely everything else in the Universe. The same assemblage of atoms that go into making an inflated rubber ball on Earth, will make one Planet Zegorg in a galaxy 100 million light years from here. 

Gun to your head, where do you place your bet? Spontaneous existence or infinite regress?

I've never heard of spontaneous existence, so I had to google it and couldn't find much on it. Infinite regress is the "Turtles All the Way Down" theory, so I would bet on neither. 

"I do not know what exactly happened at the moment this present universe we are living in came into being" is an acceptable answer.  

What do you mean you can't take a neither position? Of course you can, that's literally what Agnosticism is. Neither answer is known. As far as which I think is more in line with universal physics - well, if I'm not a physicist and I also have no capacity to determine the probability of claims which cannot be tested, then my answer would necessarily be I don't know? Right now, I don't think either of these claims is in line with universal physics and it's impossible to determine which if either are likely.

Thank you, I'm aware. Anyone can title a book anything they want; it doesn't speak to whether the book actually lives up to the title.

Correct. Not only is it a tautology, but it's also a tautology that explains nothing and fails to live up to the title of his book which is why his book has been panned by other physicists.

He's using a very specific definition of "nothing" (which is DIFFERENT from how our friend Sarge here is using it). First he said "nothing is nothing" which is not a definition at all. Then he said nothing (in this context) is the absence of everything, which is different from how Krauss is defining nothing, which was my whole goddamn point!

You can take that position, but you'd be wrong.



I don't disagree, but what do you mean by "nothing?" What was explained?



Sounds like a big steaming pile of semantic horseshit to me, but I'll play along...

How does Krauss define nothing and how does it differ from how you define it?

I don't think either one is necessarily plausible. There might be several possibilities we not discovered yet. It might take a whole series of discoveries before we do. The folks 1000 years ago who were asked basically the same questions as you invariably gave wrong answers. The universe came from something, just what though, we've not gotten to that point yet. So, my answer is pending further study. Why do you need an answer right now?

I have no clue, I depend on the folks who have committed themselves to the rigors of science education and research who have been studying these problems from centuries. Each stand upon the shoulders of the giants who went before them.

Anyone can guess at it though and your guess is as good as mine.  

I've no problems talking about these subjects since I have made a committed study of religion myself. (Study of religion is not theology, so I can't answer science or philosophical questions using it.) Frankly, I would like to be appreciated for my acquisition of knowledge on the subject and not have it written off as liberal waste of time that has nothing but wrong answers. Not that you've done that, but plenty on these boards do. 

With each discovery we can at least determine what the Universe isn't. Like we now know that there is no intelligent life on Mars. One time science thought it was possible. But we couldn't be sure until we developed the technologies to go look. 

And it does not have to be one or the other, it can be something entirely different and we just have not developed the knowledge or technology yet to find out. 

And very few empirical discoveries invalid the science before it. If you are looking for a "god" loophole, you will not honestly find one.

General Relativity did not invalidate Special Relativity. Quantum physics did not invalidate Newtonian physics and Newton did not invalidate Euclid. But somethings do have to be abandon like heliocentrism or attempting maths without the number Zero. (At one time Zero was an heretical idea because it was thought there could no void as God would fill any empty space.) 

The Steady State model of the universe does not work anymore. About 50 years ago, the Big Bang expanding universe became the accepted model because all the observed evidence said this is the most likely explanation, no one ever said this is the only and final explanation. These are profound paradigm shifts and yet we hardily noticed you or I until the science made possible computers and other advanced technologies. 

 

No, you wouldn't. 1) You can't be "wrong" by refusing to take a position on a claim. 2) You can't just say that a neither position makes someone wrong, you have to demonstrate why using a rational argument. Right now, all we have is a claim with no argument!


Fair enough; that was a poor choice of words on my part. An addition use of the word "nothing" is confusing. For the sake of clarity, I should have said, "the tautology doesn't explain anything".


It SEEMS that Krauss is essentially defining nothing as the absence of matter and space, or rather matter-antimatter symmetry (in physics terminology). With matter-antimatter symmetry, you end up with a net plus of matter (or antimatter) in the universe (which is what we see), instead of equal parts matter and antimatter (which we do not see). The question arises because the laws of physics as we know them state that matter and antimatter can only be created in equal parts. However, that's NOT the same thing as defining "nothing" as the absence of everything because in physics nothing would still include the existence of the quantum fields, including gravity, electromagnetism, and phenomenon exhibiting "quantum mechanical properties".

A Universe from Nothing (criticism)
What does Krauss mean?
Why We Had to Change the Meaning of Nothing

1. At one time science thought it was possible there was life on Mars, not that there was, although Percival Lowell, a 19th astronomer, looked up at Mars with his telescope at the time and drew this picture of what he thought he saw. He interrupted these lines as canals. Looks plausible, since he had no idea what the atmosphere was like, it could be assumed Mars had a similar one to Earth. Life existing on Mars was not a stupid assumption, we still think it is possible to find life or the fossils. But no intelligent life, that's for sure. 



2. Who says? 

3. But I predict that you are leading up to it based on my past observations and data I have collected from you over the years. We are talking about a "creation" event and that's seems to me like a natural progression of the argument to "what about a creator."   

4. Maybe it was tortoises.