'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

That made no sense what so ever I am sorry. I have read scientific journals that made more sense then that. And I am not even a scientist. the guy in the video puts up a good argument. You did not debunk what he said one bit. you just repeted the same thing over and over again. Something cannot come from nothing. But it can.

reply to post by Maddogkull

You did not debunk what he said one bit

Wasn't my intension to.....


As I said, it is Not an easy one, to get the brain around, is it ???

Most don't understand this Component called "Nothing"....

So they are unable to understand, how all has come from "Nothing"...

Yes it is a little confusing

Just wondering did you even see the video. He was showing how the vaccum of space could not have more energy then all of the galaxys combined, and that the energy would be zero meaning nothing.

reply to post by reasonable


"A Universe From Nothing"

But where did quantum mechanics come from? Doh!

I've seen this video before, assuming it's true, all this means is something can come from nothing... with the help of quantum mechanics! The next question is: was there something before quantum mechanics? Is quantum mechanics eternal? And if quantum mechanics always existed, then are we going to have discussions that go a little something like this, "Hey Bob, who or what created the universe?"..."Well, Jim, I think the popular theory now is that the universe is the product of one of dem there quantum fluctuations!" "But, Bob, something must have existed before quantum mechanics, right?" "No, Jim, in fact, there was nothing that preceded quantum mechanics, not even... 'nothing!'".."Is that so, Bob?...Quantum mechanics is eternal? Wait, that can't be right? Who or what created quantum mechanics?"

What's my point? Other than me finding that make believe conversation funny, my point is atheists are full of bull#. Whenever a theist claims the existence of something eternal, God, they're always asked, "BUT DER, WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?" And then theists would look at them funny and answer, "Um, moron, that's the point... God is eternal... nothing created Him." But for some reason, scientists can get away with the idea of there being something eternal without being asked the same stupid question. First of all, I'd like to know if it's even possible with out current technology and knowledge to reach the conclusion (without a sizable leap of faith) that quantum mechanics is eternal.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by ChickenPie]

Please delete.


[edit on 26-6-2010 by PieKeeper]

Originally posted by ChickenPie
What's my point? Other than me finding that make believe conversation funny, my point is atheists are full of bull#. Whenever a theist claims the existence of something eternal, God, they're always asked, "BUT DER, WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?" And then theists would look at them funny and answer, "Um, moron, that's the point... God is eternal... nothing created Him." But for some reason, scientists can get away with the idea of there being something eternal without being asked the same stupid question. First of all, I'd like to know if it's even possible with out current technology and knowledge to reach the conclusion (without a sizable leap of faith) that quantum mechanics is eternal.

I haven't heard anyone claim that quantum mechanics is eternal. Also, you're generalizing atheists. Atheism doesn't make any claims. It's simply the disbelief in gods.

If someone asks you "Where did god come from?", it's probably because you've told them that that everything has to have a creator, or that nothing can exist without something to create it (rephrase of the same idea). In that case, the question is valid.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by PieKeeper]

Originally posted by PieKeeperI haven't heard anyone claim that quantum mechanics is eternal.

If scientists are not willing to say quantum mechanics is eternal, then they're still left with the question how can something come from nothing.

reply to post by Maddogkull


What has energy got to do with anything???

Energy is just another "Component" of your experience i.e. your universe.

All is Not dependant on Energy. It is just a component of your world.
Something existed before Energy was introduced.

Just because you are Not "Aware" of any other Worlds does Not mean the Universe you know is the only manifestation.

And just because you are perhaps Not "Aware" of anything else, other than your material world you think you know, does Not say there are other things, you have yet to descover or experience.

The "All" is Not limited to your degree of knowledge, thank goodness....

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Well actually everything is dependant on energy. There is not a shred of evidence of another universe for the matter. So really everything we know is energy. So how can you wrap your head around a concept of no energy when infact everything we see is energy.

reply to post by Maddogkull


Prove what you have written is correct...

reply to post by sirnex

What 'everything else'? If we ever develop a TOE, then what would be left that it just decided to not include? How would that be considered a TOE? Your not making much sense there.

Sorry to intrude on the flow here, you are doing a great job, but... Godel demonstrated that a 'actual' TOE is impossible... so when a TOE is discussed the bounds of what is meant by 'everything' must be described.

Are you discussing a 'philosophical everything' which is then subject to the infinity paradoxes as mentioned by Krauss, or an 'reality everything' which is then subject to unpredictable exclusions?

reply to post by rnaa

Sorry to intrude on the flow here, you are doing a great job, but... Godel demonstrated that a 'actual' TOE is impossible... so when a TOE is discussed the bounds of what is meant by 'everything' must be described.

Are you discussing a 'philosophical everything' which is then subject to the infinity paradoxes as mentioned by Krauss, or an 'reality everything' which is then subject to unpredictable exclusions?

Excellent point....

Often the human race think that reality is all that they are aware of... but this is Incomplete, and only a very small piece of the Jigsaw...

reply to post by sirnex

Case in point against concepts like qualia. You may process a particular wavelength and label it red by your capacity to abstractly think about that information received and your ability to use language to apply a label to it, whereas I may not even process that wavelength the same way and it would appear to be a different color or heck, I could experience it as pain.

Or possibly another way of wording it.

We experience red as red because as a child we saw two balls and were told that one was red and one was blue. Our brain was sufficiently competent to identify what it was about the two balls that was different and started assigning that difference to categories of color and assigned the agreed on wavelength the label 'red' (and the other 'blue'). When we later observed two toy trucks and was told that one was red and the other blue, the difference, the category, and the label was permanently imprinted. Red is red because we were taught that red is red.

It is extremely common for others to experience 'red' as something other than 'red'. Many, many people experience 'red' as rojo or Écouter or etc.

EnlightenedUp, I admire your patience with that guy.

I read the conversation and starred the posts that gibed with the experience of my own philosophical journey. Which were most of yours.

(I should add, for the sake of other readers, yes, I've read Dennett.)

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
EnlightenedUp, I admire your patience with that guy.

I read the conversation and starred the posts that gibed with the experience of my own philosophical journey. Which were most of yours.

(I should add, for the sake of other readers, yes, I've read Dennett.)

Thank you. I found the video quite interesting, no matter the intent behind it. Thank you for the stars. One thing's for sure, rnaa up there missed the point, doesn't get it, and like most is stuck on the labelling paradigm.

Edit:
Or, perhaps, I don't get rnaa...neither here nor there.

[edit on 7/6/2010 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by EnlightenUp

Or, perhaps, I don't get rnaa...neither here nor there.

So, what is hard to get? "Red" is a label that we have attached to a certain range of electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum.

That wavelength is not red because there is something inherently 'red' about it. It is red because we say it is red. If an individual's physiology prevents him (seldom her) from distinguishing that wavelength from other colors then they may not have a good understanding "red" is.

If someone experiences the visible spectrum as something other than vision, then they may have an experience of "red" that is just as useful or not.

Whatever, if a individual can experience and distinguish the wavelength that 'everyone' calls red, then they will learn to label that wavelength range as "red". Or if they are native Spanish speakers, "rojo". Or what ever it is labeled in whatever language they speak.

There is nothing inherent in my internal experience of that wavelength that requires you to have the same experience. The only thing that is required for us to understand each other about the experience of red is that we have each been exposed to the wavelength and that experience has been labeled with the word 'red'.

reply to post by rnaa


Hmmm....I've been calling it all kinds of things all night and it seems to appear basically the same. No, I'm not merely attaching a label to a wavelength, especially considering no wavelength need be present for the the perception to exist (the "entity" appears the same in dreams, in a darkened room). Neither here nor there because I'm talking about this appearance it has, one that preceds labels and transcends such attributions, that seems irreducible and personal in nature and that I could not convery to you, not even if you share the experience since I cannot, nor can any method in fact prove that it is the same experience. Memory and labelling are higher-level cognitive functions, most definitely reducible and in some respect, trivially implemented with current technology (of course vision color processing is a little more elaborate and suited to survival than some simple computerized spectrometer for instance).

[edit on 7/7/2010 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Yeah, I dream in color too. That is memory of a waking experience. Don't get me wrong, dreams are perfectly valid experiences, but the imagery is built-up from waking experiences. Red blind people do not dream in red.

I call that particular color experience 'red' because English is my 'native' tongue. When I was an infant, if everybody around me called it 'blue' then it would be 'blue' even though the internal experience would be exactly the same. (and I would be very confused when I found the rest of the English speaking world called it 'red').

There is no way to know if my internal experience of the color red is congruent with yours except by consistent application of the agreed upon label. That really only shows that we have agreed what label to apply to that shared color experience, not that our actual internal experience is identical.

It is too late for you 'choose' to call it something else, except that you can learn a new language and if you gain sufficient proficiency to actually think in that language, then you will call the same experience by what ever label it has in that language. 'Roja' in Spanish for example.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by EnlightenUp

 

Yeah, I dream in color too. That is memory of a waking experience. Don't get me wrong, dreams are perfectly valid experiences, but the imagery is built-up from waking experiences. Red blind people do not dream in red.

Not a memory...a construct of patterns of realized organizational potential. You could construe this as "memory" in the context of brain development itself counting as memory, but it's not of the declarative, associative or procedural sort.

I call that particular color experience 'red' because English is my 'native' tongue. When I was an infant, if everybody around me called it 'blue' then it would be 'blue' even though the internal experience would be exactly the same. (and I would be very confused when I found the rest of the English speaking world called it 'red').

You call it that because of your linguistic background. It's must be perceivable to some extent as a distinct classification in order to be discriminated for labelling.

There is no way to know if my internal experience of the color red is congruent with yours except by consistent application of the agreed upon label. That really only shows that we have agreed what label to apply to that shared color experience, not that our actual internal experience is identical.

Correct, no way to know. The sharing merely involves our common external experience, not the personal perception or essential experience of said. I'll go out on a limb and say that it's probably fairly similar-- reasonable speculation.

It is too late for you 'choose' to call it something else, except that you can learn a new language and if you gain sufficient proficiency to actually think in that language, then you will call the same experience by what ever label it has in that language.

It's bluurrg and not difficult to see it without a lingual thought in my mind...language agnostic. Heck, I even saw before learning my L1.

'Roja' in Spanish for example.

"Rojo" or "Roja" depending upon the gender of what it modifies.

This whole labelling thing is a tangential red herring clearly not of what I speak, which I have made clear throughout whatever I posted many months ago.

reply to post by EnlightenUp

You call it that because of your linguistic background. It's must be perceivable to some extent as a distinct classification in order to be discriminated for labelling.

Exactly what I have been saying. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll go out on a limb and say that it's probably fairly similar-- reasonable speculation.

I agree, due to common biology, and the consistency of chemistry and physics. Acknowledging that similarity is an interesting thought, however, it is essentially irrelevant to anything beyond the repercussions it has in dealing with color-deficient individuals.

"Rojo" or "Roja" depending upon the gender of what it modifies.

Es verdad.

[edit on 7/7/2010 by rnaa]