You are right that there are far more configurations of things than of nothing, making something more likely over time — Kenosha Kid
anthropic principle — Kenosha Kid
The fundamental question of metaphysics asks, "why does the universe exist?" — TheMadFool
Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted.
...ever since the scientific revolution of the 17th century, what physics has given us in the way of candidates for the fundamental laws of nature have as a general rule simply taken it for granted that there is, at the bottom of everything, some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff. Newton, for example, took that elementary stuff to consist of material particles. And physicists at the end of the 19th century took that elementary stuff to consist of both material particles and electromagnetic fields. And so on. And what the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all the fundamental laws of nature are about, and all there is for the fundamental laws of nature to be about, insofar as physics has ever been able to imagine, is how that elementary stuff is arranged. The fundamental laws of nature generally take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of that stuff are physically possible and which aren’t, or rules connecting the arrangements of that elementary stuff at later times to its arrangement at earlier times, or something like that. But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all.
The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.
However, in the presumed absence of God, finding a compelling reason for anything to exist is problematical, because science generally rejects questions of teleology or purpose, and this is the teleological question par excellence. — Wayfarer
In my humble opinion, assuming god created the universe... — TheMadFool
the mechanistic answer is a permanent fixture of any answer to the fundamental question of metaphysics. — TheMadFool
Yeah but everything is also not something.Not everything isn't nothing, it's something. However not something is nothing. — TheMadFool
Not everything is not necessarily something. It could possibly be nothing as well.Not everything isn't nothing, it's something. However not something is nothing. — TheMadFool
Contradiction.I think the soundest concept of 'nothing' we can have is precisely this 0-dimensional Hilbert space of the inflaton field: this is not a nothing in which 'no thing' happens to exist, but the nothing in which the very possibility of a thing cannot exist, since there are precisely zero allowed states, not even static, empty ground states. — Kenosha Kid
Not everything is not necessarily something. It could possibly be nothing as well. — Harry Hindu
All I'm saying is that whether god exists or not, there has to be a way the universe came into existence. There's got to be a process to creation whether or not god initiated it. — TheMadFool
NOT some thing isnt necessarily nothing either, but can be some other thing. Prove that nothing is anything other than a thought - which is something.Not everything can't be nothing because not nothing isn't necessarily everything. Not nothing and not everything can both be in something. — TheMadFool
NOT some thing isnt necessarily nothing either — Harry Hindu
I don't see how this follows. How does the number of configurations of things make something more likely than nothing?You are right that there are far more configurations of things than of nothing, making something more likely over time. — Kenosha Kid
Exactly. What came before determines what comes after. How does nothing begat something?But time began, as far as we can tell, with things. — Kenosha Kid
Maybe 'process' is just an anthropomorphic conception. — Wayfarer
'The Creation is the original acte gratuit. — Wayfarer
Probabilities are just ideas stemming from our ignorance. Reality just is a certain way. It's not more probable to be a certain way than another. It already is a certain way. How it is, is what we are ignorant of, therfore how it is is probabilistic in our eyes.However, it does prove that the probability of something existing is greater than the probability of nothing. — TheMadFool
And nothing is an idea, therefore nothing is something. — Harry Hindu
Probabilities are just ideas stemming from our ignorance. Reality just is a certain way. It's not more probable to be a certain way than another. It already is a certain way. How it is, is what we are ignorant of, therfore how it is is probabilistic in our eyes.
Your probabilistic answer doesn't provide anything that we didn't already know - that something exists. — Harry Hindu
Is not a bachelor a married man or nothing?However not something is nothing. — TheMadFool
Seems like a silly question to me. I don't see how you could even set out answering such a question.The probabilistic answer to the fundamental question of metaphysics I provided doesn't have as its conclusion that "something exists". As you rightly pointed out, we already know that. What it does or what I want it to do is provide an explanation as to why "something exists". — TheMadFool
Probabilities are just ideas stemming from our ignorance — Harry Hindu
Is not a bachelor a married man or nothing? — Harry Hindu
What you said here is incorrect:Not a bachelor is not nothing because a bachelor is something. So, yes, not a bachelor is a married man. And...? — TheMadFool
Then not something isn't necessarily nothing.However not something is nothing. — TheMadFool
I did explain myself. I said, that I don't see how you could set out answering such a question. Why something as opposed to what - nothing? Didn't I already point out that "nothing" is just an idea, which is something, so "nothing" doesn't exist except as a thought in your mind.Explain yourself. Why "silly"? — TheMadFool
Yes. Probabilities are just concepts related to our ignorance of the causal relationships of which we are talking about.Are you saying probability has more to do with us, specifically our ignorance rather than being a real feature of reality itself? — TheMadFool
To say that there is no way of knowing indicates that we are definitely talking about ourselves and not some objective feature of reality. I guess the question is, how do we determine if probabilities are objective or subjective?An example the book gives is radioactivity - there's no way of knowing, says the book, which particle will decay and when and that's just another way of saying chance is a feature of reality itself and not necessarily a matter of human ignorance as you seem to be suggesting. Then there's quantum physics which too, to my knowledge, exhibits probabilistic behavior and according to some sources this isn't because we're lacking the information that would make quantum physics non-probabilistic but because quantum physics is inherently probabilistic.
What say you? — TheMadFool
It explains a lot or, more accurately, does away with the need to explain anything — TheMadFool
Then there's quantum physics which too, to my knowledge, exhibits probabilistic behavior and according to some sources this isn't because we're lacking the information that would make quantum physics non-probabilistic but because quantum physics is inherently probabilistic. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.