Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (Introduction)

by David Turell , Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 05:44 (3232 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh:
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-r... for throwing Krauss at me:-"Krauss: That would be a legitimate argument if that were all I was arguing. By the way it's a nebulous term to say that something is a quantum vacuum in this way. That's another term that these theologians and philosophers have started using because they don't know what the hell it is, but it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about. When I talk about empty space, I am talking about a quantum vacuum, but when I'm talking about no space whatsoever, I don't see how you can call it a quantum vacuum. It's true that I'm applying the laws of quantum mechanics to it, but I'm applying it to nothing, to literally nothing. No space, no time, nothing. There may have been meta-laws that created it, but how you can call that universe that didn't exist "something" is beyond me. When you go to the level of creating space, you have to argue that if there was no space and no time, there wasn't any pre-existing quantum vacuum. That's a later stage. -"Even if you accept this argument that nothing is not nothing, you have to acknowledge that nothing is being used in a philosophical sense. But I don't really give a damn about what "nothing" means to philosophers; I care about the "nothing" of reality. And if the "nothing" of reality is full of stuff, then I'll go with that.-He is talking around his subterfuge. "Nothing full of stuff"-" Krause what I point out at the end of the book is that the multiverse may resolve all of those questions. " -More pie in the sky. What is provable about a multiverse?- "Krauss: "The multiverse could explain it by being eternal, in the same way that God explains it by being eternal, but there's a huge difference: the multiverse is well motivated and God is just an invention of lazy minds."-Motivated by whom? Those who want to get rid of fine tuning. Talk about laziness to conjure up something which we cannot prove. -On the other hand I agree with this in a sense:-"Krause: It's a fine line and it's hard to tell where to fall on this one. What drove me to write this book was this discovery that the nature of "nothing" had changed, that we've discovered that "nothing" is almost everything and that it has properties. That to me is an amazing discovery." -What he has done is point out that there must be something before the Big Bang. One can never get something from nothing. There must be something eternal before the BB. Take your choice as to what it is.