Teleology And Human Ethics...

[seer]

Both as described by Krauss and Vilenkin. The bottom line is Krauss supports the no space and no time as the nature of Quantum Nothing as Vilenkin does. They both are in agreement as cited.

No Shuny, you are incorrect as Krauss explained in the link I posted a while back he holds to the empty space model (which has particles and energy), Vilenkin was speaking of the no space model. And they are completely different.

[JimL]

Both as described by Krauss and Vilenkin. The bottom line is Krauss supports the no space and no time as the nature of Quantum Nothing as Vilenkin does. They both are in agreement as cited.

Sorry shunya, but I have just re-read Vilenkins theory and seer is right, he is indeed talking about absolutely nothing, other than the laws of physics. It really isn't a very sound hypothesis in my opinion, but it is what he is saying. Vilinkens contention is that because the energy in our universe equals zero, no laws are violated by a universe being created from nothing and that because no laws are violated then it will happen, or could happen, whatever. I'm no physicist, but I don't think its very sound reasoning. But seer is correct, that is what Vilinken is proposing. Whether or not he actually believes that to be the case himself, I don't know. I Kind of doubt it, but it is exactly what he is saying in the article I read.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, which nothing is it, the one with space and virtual particles or the nothing without space? And if it is the latter what is popping into existence - since even virtual particles need space to exist. So no space no anything, anything physical at least. BTW - the first nothing is Krauss' position the second is Vilenkin's - and they are not the same.

Krauss' model is indeed no space and no time as cited.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/sc...m-nothing.html

Dr. Krauss delineates three different kinds of nothingness. First is what may have passed muster as nothing with the ancient Greeks: empty space. But we now know that even empty space is filled with energy, vibrating with electromagnetic fields and so-called virtual particles dancing in and out of existence on borrowed energy courtesy of the randomness that characterizes reality on the smallest scales, according to the rules of quantum theory.

Second is nothing, without even space and time. Following a similar quantum logic, theorists have proposed that whole universes, little bubbles of space-time, could pop into existence, like bubbles in boiling water, out of this nothing.

[shunyadragon]

Sorry shunya, but I have just re-read Vilenkins theory and seer is right, he is indeed talking about absolutely nothing, other than the laws of physics. It really isn't a very sound hypothesis in my opinion, but it is what he is saying. Vilinkens contention is that because the energy in our universe equals zero, no laws are violated by a universe being created from nothing and that because no laws are violated then it will happen, or could happen, whatever. I'm no physicist, but I don't think its very sound reasoning. But seer is correct, that is what Vilinken is proposing. Whether or not he actually believes that to be the case himself, I don't know. I Kind of doubt it, but it is exactly what he is saying in the article I read.

NO Seer and you are wrong. Vilenkin's absolute nothing is something as cited in Vilenkin's own words.

Your selective citing of Vilenkin is egregiously dishonest, and solely based on a selfish egocentric religious agenda.

Source: https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2...osmic-origins/https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstrac...hysRevD.30.509

- Alexander Vilenkin

[JimL]

NO Seer and you are wrong. Vilenkin;s absolute nothing is something as cited in Vilenkin's own words.

Here is Vilinkens own words shunya: I say "nothing" in quotations because the nothing that we were refering to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics, so the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

So, there is no space, there is no matter popping in and out of existence, and there is no time, there is only the laws of physics. Now, I don't believe that myself from a strictly intuitive perspective, and Vilinken gives no explanation as to how the laws of physics alone could create anything, let alone a universe, but those are his words. His only assertion is that such an event doesn't violate the laws of physics, therefore its a possibility. So, for that reason, that he gives no explanation of process, I don't put much credence in it.


Okay, I take it all back. You can find other quotes from Vilenkin where he seems to contradict himself, and that's the problem I have with his definition of the Universe spontaneously emerging from nothing.

Here is another quote of Vilenkins from 1983: Where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical spacetime. "Nothing" is a realm of unrestrained quantum gravity, a pre-geometric state in which all of our basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy etc., lose their meaning.

So, I take it back seer, nothing is a pre-geometric state, a realm of quantum gravity. Thats not exactly nothing. I don't blame you for misunderstanding Vilenkin though, I misunderstood as well, he doesn't always make it clear what he means by nothing.

[Tassman]

Seer, he posted a link quoting from Vilinkens own books. Obviously nothing can't tunnel through nothing. The problem is in the physicists loose description, at times, of the quantum vacuum as nothing. Even Krauss, as you know, calls the quantum vacuum nothing even though he knows it isn't absolutely nothing. They know what they're talking about, they know what they mean by nothing, but unfortunately the lay person is easily confused by their terminology.

In the case of seer, he's not confused about "nothing", as understood by science, but seems to be deliberately misrepresenting it. He erroneously applies it to justify his religious presupposition of creation ex nihilo, when this is demonstrably not Vilenkin's position. And he's done this with the same argument for years, as though he's engaged in the exegesis of Vilenkin's sacred text.

[Tassman]

Here is Vilinkens own words shunya: I say "nothing" in quotations because the nothing that we were refering to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics, so the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

So, there is no space, there is no matter popping in and out of existence, and there is no time, there is only the laws of physics. Now, I don't believe that myself from a strictly intuitive perspective, and Vilinken gives no explanation as to how the laws of physics alone could create anything, let alone a universe, but those are his words. His only assertion is that such an event doesn't violate the laws of physics, therefore its a possibility. So, for that reason, that he gives no explanation of process, I don't put much credence in it.


Okay, I take it all back. You can find other quotes from Vilenkin where he seems to contradict himself, and that's the problem I have with his definition of the Universe spontaneously emerging from nothing.

Here is another quote of Vilenkins from 1983: Where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical spacetime. "Nothing" is a realm of unrestrained quantum gravity, a pre-geometric state in which all of our basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy etc., lose their meaning.

So, I take it back seer, nothing is a pre-geometric state, a realm of quantum gravity. Thats not exactly nothing. I don't blame you for misunderstanding Vilenkin though, I misunderstood as well, he doesn't always make it clear what he means by nothing.

Yet!

[JimL]

Yet!

Yes, but Vilinken does sometimes say, "from literally nothing" and uses the term "Platonic realm", which can be confusing when he is trying to explain his hypothesis to non-physicists. I didn't believe that there could be literally nothing and then a universe simply because it didn't make any sense to me particularly when a process was involved, i.e a tunnlling process. I finally came across the above Vilinken quote from 1983 where he clearly defines what he means by nothing. Hopefully that will clear things up for seer.


Also, I don't think that the laws come from anywhere, the quantum vacuum just does what it does according to its own nature, the laws are just the language we use to describe what it does. But thats just me, some people seem to think that laws are actual existing things.

[Tassman]

Yes, but Vilinken does sometimes say, "from literally nothing" and uses the term "Platonic realm", which can be confusing when he is trying to explain his hypothesis to non-physicists. I didn't believe that there could be literally nothing and then a universe simply because it didn't make any sense to me particularly when a process was involved, i.e a tunnlling process. I finally came across the above Vilinken quote from 1983 where he clearly defines what he means by nothing. Hopefully that will clear things up for seer.


Also, I don't think that the laws come from anywhere, the quantum vacuum just does what it does according to its own nature, the laws are just the language we use to describe what it does. But thats just me, some people seem to think that laws are actual existing things.

Yes I agree that Vilenkin can be confusing in his use of words but, to be fair, he is trying to explain in layman's terms things that really demand an understanding of the maths involved in order to properly understand them.

And, it's a helpful quote you found.

[seer]

Krauss' model is indeed no space and no time as cited.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/sc...m-nothing.html

Dr. Krauss delineates three different kinds of nothingness. First is what may have passed muster as nothing with the ancient Greeks: empty space. But we now know that even empty space is filled with energy, vibrating with electromagnetic fields and so-called virtual particles dancing in and out of existence on borrowed energy courtesy of the randomness that characterizes reality on the smallest scales, according to the rules of quantum theory.

Second is nothing, without even space and time. Following a similar quantum logic, theorists have proposed that whole universes, little bubbles of space-time, could pop into existence, like bubbles in boiling water, out of this nothing.

Shuny, Krauss is tell us what kinds of nothing there are, it doesn't say in the article which one he holds to. The first one includes space. As I kinked a while back that is the one he holds to - which is not the same as Vilenkin. Here is Krauss speaking of his empty space, and it is not the "no space" of Vilenkin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8

[seer]

Here is Vilinkens own words shunya: I say "nothing" in quotations because the nothing that we were refering to here is the absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics, so the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

So, there is no space, there is no matter popping in and out of existence, and there is no time, there is only the laws of physics. Now, I don't believe that myself from a strictly intuitive perspective, and Vilinken gives no explanation as to how the laws of physics alone could create anything, let alone a universe, but those are his words. His only assertion is that such an event doesn't violate the laws of physics, therefore its a possibility. So, for that reason, that he gives no explanation of process, I don't put much credence in it.


Okay, I take it all back. You can find other quotes from Vilenkin where he seems to contradict himself, and that's the problem I have with his definition of the Universe spontaneously emerging from nothing.

Here is another quote of Vilenkins from 1983: Where by "nothing" I mean a state with no classical spacetime. "Nothing" is a realm of unrestrained quantum gravity, a pre-geometric state in which all of our basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy etc., lose their meaning.

So, I take it back seer, nothing is a pre-geometric state, a realm of quantum gravity. Thats not exactly nothing. I don't blame you for misunderstanding Vilenkin though, I misunderstood as well, he doesn't always make it clear what he means by nothing.

James, that is from 1983, the link I posted is from a year ago. Remember in that link he makes clear that there is NO SPACE. And that the only prior condition that existed are the laws of physics - in the Platonic sense. How does anything Jim exist is there is no space - where does it exist?

[seer]

In the case of seer, he's not confused about "nothing", as understood by science, but seems to be deliberately misrepresenting it. He erroneously applies it to justify his religious presupposition of creation ex nihilo, when this is demonstrably not Vilenkin's position. And he's done this with the same argument for years, as though he's engaged in the exegesis of Vilenkin's sacred text.

You are lying again Tass, just as you lied about the multiverse thing, my link to Vilenkin is from last year, Jim's is from 83. He has obviously changed his view. He clearly says that the universe came out of a condition of NO SPACE and NO TIME. Where can anything physical exist without space? And he also makes clear that the only "prior" condition necessary are the laws of physics in the Platonic sense. Again for those who are not close minded start at 4:57 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s

[seer]

NO Seer and you are wrong. Vilenkin's absolute nothing is something as cited in Vilenkin's own words.

Your selective citing of Vilenkin is egregiously dishonest, and solely based on a selfish egocentric religious agenda.

Source: https://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2...osmic-origins/The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe."

Yes the laws of laws of physics must have existed, not energy or matter because there was NO SPACE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSES...tbChannel=null

Tell me Shuny where do these "things" (matter or energy) exist if there is NO SPACE? The spirit world?

[seer]

Krauss' model is indeed no space and no time as cited.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/sc...m-nothing.html

Dr. Krauss delineates three different kinds of nothingness. First is what may have passed muster as nothing with the ancient Greeks: empty space. But we now know that even empty space is filled with energy, vibrating with electromagnetic fields and so-called virtual particles dancing in and out of existence on borrowed energy courtesy of the randomness that characterizes reality on the smallest scales, according to the rules of quantum theory.

Second is nothing, without even space and time. Following a similar quantum logic, theorists have proposed that whole universes, little bubbles of space-time, could pop into existence, like bubbles in boiling water, out of this nothing.

Shuny, there are three nothings here - two do not include space - where does Krauss say that his theory does not include space? Here he is speaking of the universe coming from empty space, start at 8:20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

[JimL]

James, that is from 1983, the link I posted is from a year ago. Remember in that link he makes clear that there is NO SPACE. And that the only prior condition that existed are the laws of physics - in the Platonic sense. How does anything Jim exist is there is no space - where does it exist?

According to Vilinkens hypothesis, where it exists is exactly where Vilinken says it exists, in a realm of unrestrained quantum gravity, a state with no classical spacetime, a pre-geometric state in which all of our basic notions of space, time, energy, entropy etc, lose their meaning. Thats not nothing seer, and that's according Vilinken in his own words concerning the very state of nothingness that you're talking about. Why exactly physicists sometimes use that term, i.e. nothing, to describe the pre-universe state, i don't know, it's obviously confused a whole lot of people.