Teleology And Human Ethics...

[JimL]

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

Krauss is trying to explain what physicists mean by nothing and using the idea of empty space to convey that idea. He doesn't actually mean to invoke the existence of space itself.

[JimL]

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?

You're confusing classical spacetime with the pre-spacetime void.

[shunyadragon]

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

Selective dishonest citation. If you read all of Krauss' work you will realize he applies the second definition of 'nothing' to physics and cosmology. Actually in plan English I cited Krauss specifically that he applied the nothing of no space, and no time to the Quantum world where universe emerge.

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.

Lawrance Krauss in plan simple English.

[seer]

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.

Jim he says more than this in my video - he makes it clear that his theory has the universe rising from NO SPACE.So the question becomes - how can anything physical exist without space? And are the pre-geometric state and quantum gravity physical things or simply laws? Are they the "Platonic" laws Vilenkin talks about in my link? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSES...tbChannel=null

[seer]

Selective dishonest citation. If you read all of Krauss' work you will realize he applies the second definition of 'nothing' to physics and cosmology. Actually in plan English I cited Krauss specifically that he applied the nothing of no space, and no time to the Quantum world where universe emerge.

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.

Lawrance Krauss in plan simple English.

No Shuny, Krauss does not say which "nothing" he holds to - he mentions all three in this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sK...tbChannel=null

He does not commit to the "no space" model, as Vilenkin does, if you say he does then it is on you to show it or you are proven a liar again.

[seer]

You're confusing classical spacetime with the pre-spacetime void.

Jim, how does even a void exist without space? Where does it exist?

[JimL]

Jim he says more than this in my video - he makes it clear that his theory has the universe rising from NO SPACE.So the question becomes - how can anything physical exist without space? And are the pre-geometric state and quantum gravity physical things or simply laws? Are they the "Platonic" laws Vilenkin talks about in my link? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSES...tbChannel=null

Yes he uses different terminology here and there to explain his views and that is how people get confused, but the main point is that no, there is no state of which we would understand as absolute nothingness, there is always something. The quantum vacuum is not nothing, even an empty void would be something, and it is not laws, but the vacuum, according to Vilinken, adheres to the same laws as does our classical spacetime out of which it arose.

Now, whether you want to call the vacuum physical or not is another question. I don't know how to answer that exactly. Are vibrating fields physical, I don't know, but when you come right down to it, even for classical spacetime, everything, including yourself, is a vibrating field.

[JimL]

Jim, how does even a void exist without space? Where does it exist?

Just think of it as space, without the actual material space. Area.

[seer]

Yes he uses different terminology here and there to explain his views and that is how people get confused, but the main point is that no, there is no state of which we would understand as absolute nothingness, there is always something. The quantum vacuum is not nothing, even an empty void would be something, and it is not laws, but the vacuum, according to Vilinken, adheres to the same laws as does our classical spacetime out of which it arose.

Now, whether you want to call the vacuum physical or not is another question. I don't know how to answer that exactly. Are vibrating fields physical, I don't know, but when you come right down to it, even for classical spacetime, everything, including yourself, is a vibrating field.

Jim, that is not correct. Go to my video, the vacuum does not pre-exist the creation event, the vacuum comes from the creation event, start at about 4:50, it is perfectly clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSES...tbChannel=null

[seer]

Just think of it as space, without the actual material space. Area.

So space that is not actually space, because if there is anything actually in it then it has both space and time.

[shunyadragon]

No Shuny, Krauss does not say which "nothing" he holds to - he mentions all three in this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sK...tbChannel=null

He does not commit to the "no space" model, as Vilenkin does, if you say he does then it is on you to show it or you are proven a liar again.

You need English comprehension lessons. Krauss is specific:

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.

[JimL]

Jim, that is not correct. Go to my video, the vacuum does not pre-exist the creation event, the vacuum comes from the creation event, start at about 4:50, it is perfectly clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSES...tbChannel=null

Yep, you are right seer, thats what Vilinken says. But he also says what I posted, that the vacuum pre-exists classical spacetime, so take your pick I guess. Apparently Vilinken is himself confused. Ultimately, no matter how you see it, it's still a mystery anyway. Personally speaking his earlier explanation is more plausable to me, like Lucretius, as far as i'm concerned, nothing comes from nothing, unless it is somehow proven otherwise.

[seer]

Yep, you are right seer, thats what Vilinken says. But he also says what I posted, that the vacuum pre-exists classical spacetime, so take your pick I guess. Apparently Vilinken is himself confused. Ultimately, no matter how you see it, it's still a mystery anyway. Personally speaking his earlier explanation is more plausable to me, like Lucretius, as far as i'm concerned, nothing comes from nothing, unless it is somehow proven otherwise.

Jim I don't think he is confused, he is just learning more and coming to different conclusions, the one I linked being the more recent - last year.

[seer]

You need English comprehension lessons. Krauss is specific:

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 explains three definitions of nothing - where does he say that THIS ONE is his position? Why not the first position that includes space or the third position that includes really nothing. If you can't show that you are just fudging the truth again to serve your dishonest religious agenda.

[Tassman]

Jim, how does even a void exist without space? Where does it exist?

http://www.aei.mpg.de/18228/03_Quant...ified_Theories

This is where science is currently at, and your attempts to use Vilenkin as the final solution are misguided. There are many possible solutions at present but as yet, no unified grand theory.