Teleology And Human Ethics...

[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."

You are fumbling again Shuny, from your link:

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.

So where does Krauss say that his position is the second one, NO SPACE, as opposed to the first with SPACE. They can't both be his position since they are not the same.

[Tassman]

"but there will not be a particular cause for any of it" really Tass, no cause? No cause and effect? Sounds like a miracle to me!

Not a "miracle", quantum mechanics!

"At the scale of atoms and electrons, many of the equations of classical mechanics, which describe how things move at everyday sizes and speeds, cease to be useful. In classical mechanics, objects exist in a specific place at a specific time. However, in quantum mechanics, objects instead exist in a haze of probability; they have a certain chance of being at point A, another chance of being at point B and so on".

https://www.livescience.com/33816-qu...planation.html

[Tassman]

Do you admit that you shoehorn everything to fit your theistic agenda, seer? And that you have got an agenda that colours your interpretation? And will you offer an apology for falsely accusing me?

That's the point of this whole exercise. Seer gets hold of a quote from a reputable source which he thinks, in his ignorance, supports his religious presuppositions and flogs it to death.
He treats it as if it was the unchangeable truth, in much the same way he views the "revealed truth" of scripture, little realising that science is a work in progress, not a fixed body of facts.

[seer]

That's the point of this whole exercise. Seer gets hold of a quote from a reputable source which he thinks, in his ignorance, supports his religious presuppositions and flogs it to death.
He treats it as if it was the unchangeable truth, in much the same way he views the "revealed truth" of scripture, little realising that science is a work in progress, not a fixed body of facts.

Yes Tass, as you fight tooth and nail to defend you atheistic faith.

[seer]

Not a "miracle", quantum mechanics!

"At the scale of atoms and electrons, many of the equations of classical mechanics, which describe how things move at everyday sizes and speeds, cease to be useful. In classical mechanics, objects exist in a specific place at a specific time. However, in quantum mechanics, objects instead exist in a haze of probability; they have a certain chance of being at point A, another chance of being at point B and so on".

https://www.livescience.com/33816-qu...planation.html

Except in this case there is no space, no time, atoms or electrons or objects to do anything. Ex nihilo...

[JimL]

Right Tass, ex nihilo. And I said nothing about God doing it, but let's face it Tass as an atheist you hate this idea, you need matter and energy to be past eternal or your faith may fall apart.

Matter/particles are epiphenomena seer, in reality there are only fields. Thats what the double split experiment showed. Everything that exists is naughht but the excitation of several quantum fields. You might want to start your inquiry by thinking about that. Just a suggestion.

[Tassman]

Except in this case there is no space, no time, atoms or electrons or objects to do anything. Ex nihilo...

Yes Tass, as you fight tooth and nail to defend you atheistic faith.

[shunyadragon]

You are fumbling again Shuny, from your link:



So where does Krauss say that his position is the second one, NO SPACE, as opposed to the first with SPACE. They can't both be his position since they are not the same.

Of course they are not the same. You are fumbling with Krauss' words. Krauss specifically describes the second nothing as what applies.

"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."

A more detailed description by Krauss, which describes virtual particles popping into and out of existence in this Quantum world of no time and no space.

[seer]

No Tass, he is saying more that that. That the ONLY necessary condition are the laws of physics:

. 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.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Sheesh Tass, it is no secret that you are a fundy atheist! And one thing that is becoming more clear (see the above link) is that there is not a path for matter and energy being eternal into the past.

[seer]

Of course they are not the same. You are fumbling with Krauss' words. Krauss specifically describes the second nothing as what applies.

"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."

A more detailed description by Krauss, which describes virtual particles popping into and out of existence in this Quantum world of no time and no space.

Source: http://bigthink.com/think-tank/a-guide-to-understanding-nothing

What is nothing?

The simplest kind of nothing is "an infinite empty space," Krauss tells Big Think. This type of nothing, the dark infinite void of the Bible, is not filled with any particles or radiation. It's just nothing. However, due to the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity, Krauss says, "we now know that empty space is a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence at every moment."

Krauss says the idea of "empty space with stuff in it" and the idea of "empty space with nothing in it" are actually "different versions of the same thing." We have come to understand a more complicated version of nothing because the laws of quantum mechanics guarantee that if you wait long enough, nothing will eventually produce something.

But if this is true, where did space come from? As Krauss points out, "once you apply the laws of quantum mechanics to gravity itself, then space itself becomes a quantum mechanical variable and fluctuates in and out of existence and you can literally, by the laws of quantum mechanics, create universes."

What about the laws of physics? The laws of nature? These laws themselves are somehow something. "That is not at all obvious or clear or necessary, says Krauss. In fact, "we now have good reason to believe that even the laws of physics themselves are kind of arbitrary."

For instance, there may be an infinite number of universes, and in each universe that has been created, the laws of physics are different. "The laws themselves come into existence when the universe comes into existence," Krauss says. In other words, there is no pre-existing fundamental law. Anything that can happen, does happen.

© Copyright Original Source

Now that is better, but he speaks of empty space and space with stuff in it, Vilenkin's position is no space. And it is still not clear in the article which position Krauss actually holds.

[seer]

Matter/particles are epiphenomena seer, in reality there are only fields. Thats what the double split experiment showed. Everything that exists is naughht but the excitation of several quantum fields. You might want to start your inquiry by thinking about that. Just a suggestion.

But where do fields come from? And all the fields we know about live in this universe, they are part of space/time furniture. Can they exist part from space? Where exactly would that be?

[shunyadragon]

Source: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Did-the-universe-begin-to-exist-or-is-eternal-a-brief-survey-20150718

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

© Copyright Original Source

More to follow . . .

[shunyadragon]

Your selective reading does not take into account that the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proposals predict the existence of Quantum fluctuations arising from the Quantum nothing of no space and time. These fuctuations have a very momentary time and mass within the Quantum nothing of no space and not time.

[seer]

Your selective reading does not take into account that the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proposals predict the existence of Quantum fluctuations arising from the Quantum nothing of no space and time. These fuctuations have a very momentary time and mass within the Quantum nothing of no space and not time.

I have no idea what you are getting at Shuny, but I like how your link ends:

At present, the inflationary model appears to be the most realistic (least speculative) explanation of the effects of density perturbations and the absence of heavy particles (such as magnetic monopoles). The inflationary model would also seem to be more empirically verifiable (because there may be ways of testing for the presence or remnants of vacuum energy/dark energy in the universe). If the inflationary model proves to best describe the conditions of our observable universe, then we are confronted with the extreme likelihood of a singularity which would imply a beginning of the universe, implying, in turn, the action of a causative power transcending space-time asymmetry (which could be viewed as God).

[shunyadragon]

I have no idea what you are getting at Shuny,

It just does to show that your English reading comprehension drops way off when it does not agree with your world view, and suddenly picks up when something 'may' share your belief as follows.

The reference basically the view of Vilenkin and Krauss basically agree but word things differently.

. . . but I like how your link ends:

No problem with this possibility, because I am a Theist. Your response does not address the main issue, which the reference covers. . Nonetheless you are misrepresenting both Krause and Vilenkin, and the physics and cosmology the origins of our universe, possible multiverse that both Vilenkin and Krauss believe in.