Yes, I see now. — Jackson

Sorry about the misunderstanding and my suspicion that you were being tricksy and throwing a switcheroo at me. :naughty:

What is QFT? — Jackson

Quantum field theory.

Sorry, I did not understand your post — Jackson

Perhaps we just have some crossed lines. I was not suggesting that I personally consider science to be shallow. I was typing that I thought you were suggesting that with.

For science, it is only the movement of particles — Jackson

I was suggesting that science is not shallow.

Particle in a field. Same thing, isn't it? — Jackson

No, because the particle and the field are not separable in the way that a drop is separable from water.
At least I think that's the case in QFT

Agree. Science is shallow, but useful — Jackson

:lol: You can be a little tricksy Mr Jackson. I was not saying science had a shallow view of nature but I accept the old switcheroo attempt.

But, the mixture of being exposed to different and opposing ideas can give rise to a lot of conflicting ideas. Certainly, that is where I come from and I know a lot of people who are confused about how to think about reality amidst exposure to various systems of ideas, especially the metaphysical aspects, because they are central to understanding life and existence. — Jack Cummins

I can only hope that I demonstrate understanding and appreciation of what you describe above.
Full credit to you and your like who will at least ponder and struggle with the conflicting viewpoints instead of just blindly accepting either side.

Depends what one means by nature. For science, it is only the movement of particles — Jackson

Well, I think that suggests that science has a rather shallow view of nature. I think science studies nature from the macro to the subatomic. Even the term 'particle' is very much in dispute against 'field excitation.'

Dark energy is detectable, else it would not be part of our theories. It isn't directly detectable, but neither is any other force/energy by that argument — noAxioms

So its affects are detectable, ok I see the distinction.

Part of the 5% baryonic matter, the only energy that participates in EM — noAxioms

I assume that massless photonic energy is part of the 32% matter you mentioned. I think I just got sidestepped by the label 'matter' placed next to the 32% as I assumed matter to mean 'has mass.'

I had to put back the context you took out — noAxioms

Ok, I just didn't understand the significance of 'cosmological frame.' I thought all reference frames are 'cosmological' as they exist within the Cosmos. But I see now you are referring to the largest frame there is, the cosmic or universal frame. How galaxy clusters influence the motion of each other etc.

I agree with every single word you said. My concern about believing is irrelevent here I think — Ken Edwards

I can't ask for more than that Ken. :blush:

I am more familiar with Rupert Sheldrake's idea of morphic resonance than Paul Davies's idea of memes — Jack Cummins

I don't know what Paul Davies has said about memes. I know he is in the 'closer to you' vid I posted but I was comparing Rupert Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance' with Richard Dawkings coining and use of the term meme from his book 'The Selfish Gene.'
Wiki describes a meme as:
A meme is an idea, behavior, or style that spreads by means of imitation from person to person within a culture and often carries symbolic meaning representing a particular phenomenon or theme. A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices, that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme

I thought this married quite well with Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance' as he described it in the video.
He prefers the term 'habit' to 'law of physics' and suggests that morphic resonance is how these habits are formed by patterns building on previous versions of themselves, which to me sounds very similar to how Dawkins suggested memes work. So the physics law 'emerges' from recognising repeating activity which mutates/morphs/changes a little over time but is firmly based on its previous manifestations.
Eventually it becomes a 'habit' or common phenomena or a currently accepted law of physics.
In the vid, Sheldrake used the example of a new chemical compound which may become 'crystalized' and eventually become part of common everyday use.

That which is currently 'beyond physics or beyond science,' may become within physics or science in the future. Michio Kaku seemed to confirm this idea earlier in the vid, when he talked about physics a hundred, a thousand or a million years from now.

So, both physics and metaphysics involve going beyond. Some who hold a position of realism may see this as being where flights of fantasy may occur. This is true, and it may be where mythic truth steps in. — Jack Cummins

I think there can be common ground between physics and metaphysics or science and spirituality if we see where they can be complementary. The musings of the Imagination can motivate the will to find out the truth about something. Some people can embark on a lifelong quest based on such 'motivations' and our whole species can benefit from it.
I just don't see why those who want to use terms like 'spiritual' or metaphysical' cant be happy with the idea that such feelings/motivations are probably from their own natural existence rather than from some external supernatural source. Why do we need the supernatural when the natural can be so super?

a moving rock will slow over time — noAxioms

Surely this is not true in a frictionless vacuum, like space. If you push a rock in space it will go on forever unless it meets something along its path.
Sean Caroll makes this very point, when he describes motion that does not need a sustaining cause.

The numbers, as I know them, is 68% dark energy, 32% matter and a smidge of radiation. — noAxioms

I don't get those numbers, if 68% is undetectable dark energy then where is the detectable energy like electromagnetism? Not part of the 32% matter I assume?

so as we expand, the density of matter drops, as does its total percentage. — noAxioms

Yep, I get that but not the individual density within galaxies as they are gravitationally bound.
New 'matter' is also created is it not? new stars, new galaxy formations, does this not also add to the density per unit area of space or is it balanced by star deaths etc? or is this factor insignificant to the 'big picture.?'

Is there an equivalence, such as dark e = dark m dark c squared?

I hesitate to use quora since they've no mechanism to propagate better answers to the top. There is a lot of very wrong info on quora. I look things up on say physics stack exchange, but don't have an account there — noAxioms

I appreciate the advice but I tend to pay most attention to those on quora who declare their qualifications but I still look for confirmation and dissension on places like the physics stack exchange and on youtube offerings from the established cosmology/physics community. I like to read the 'crank' stuff on quora as well as it's good to see the ways in which skewed thinking can operate. It helps me better recognise it in myself.

Science is in the business of predicting what something does, and not so much declaring what something is — noAxioms

I know what you mean but I think science makes a great effort to explain what IS, and rightly so. This will always be demanded of science imo. I want to predict what a system does, absolutely, but I don't want to see the universe as a black box I can never peer inside of. I want to know its inner workings and so does science imo. I think science does seek to know what something IS.

Science doesn't know? — Landoma1

Are you indicating surprise at the fact that science does not yet have all the answers?

What if the total energy in the universe is not zero? This is the case for gravity. The amount of matter energy indeed equals the amount of gravitational potential energy. But there is expansion — Landoma1

What point are you making?

DE isn't worn by particles. Its a property of space that pushes matter away from each other. — Landoma1

Doesn't help me, as QFT suggests there are no particles, just field excitations which can be labeled such for the purposes of scientific calculations. Is energy a 'property of space?' Why do some forms of it 'push' and others 'pull.' I don't expect you to have answers as science does not know what energy is. I don't think the term 'space' is currently understood much beyond the terms 'expansion' or '3D volume.' I am merely airing some of my confusions.

I’m no authority on physics but I’m interested in the philosophical implications — Wayfarer

Me neither, to my shagrin! I am interested in all the implications of science and of philosophy to a lesser degree due, to its dalliances with the esoteric and the metaphysical/supernatural but I am still interested in those aspects as I have to know and be able to explain and provide evidence for why I disagree with their significance/existence.

The DE is an energy that doesn't dilute if space grows. If you put giant springs between all galaxies you could stop expansion. — Landoma1

Yes but surely the 'force' of dark energy must overcome the 'negative' pull of gravitation to create an accelerating expansion. So does the dark energy effectively add to the positive 'push' of the 5% matter content of the universe? So that the totality of energy from the vacuum > 0.
There is also the issue of dark matter? Does that proposed 95% of all 'matter' not also not add to the positive push and gravitational pull of the vacuum? One clump of dark matter will be gravitationally attracted to another clump, yes? I think I will take @Wayfarer's advice and post this as a question on quora. I will direct it at some of the physicists there.

:up: Yeah I've read some of it as well and I felt the familiar whoosh as the explanations went above my head. I was hoping you or @noAxioms could improve my grasp of it a little.

But infinity is a purely abstract concept. In fact, Mathematics that delves deeply into it seems to be filled with paradoxes. — Paul S

I think this is probably correct. You cant draw a straight line on a ball. It would look straight to you if you exist inside or on the surface of the ball but not if you can only see the ball from the outside.
If you exist on its surface and can't access the 'inside volume.' and our universe is a very very big ball, then to us, it may seem flat and infinite, even when using our best tech.
I admit this is just armchair, rather simplistic musing but it may also be true.

I may be demonstrating my limited physics knowledge here but does the theory that 'dark energy,' (which I take to infer an energy type that is undetectable using any current known scientific technology) is the cause of the accelerating expansion rate, not contradict the evidence that the total energy of the spatial vacuum is zero?

You might be interested in watching: (its duration is approx 27 mins)


I like the fact they did not use the term metaphysics or the idea of AFTER physics but were careful to go for the idea of 'beyond physics,' in the sense of 'the current limits of physics,' which I personally would like the term metaphysics to exclusively mean.
I would be interested in your view of the proposals made by the guy who uses the term 'morphic resonance' and how you think that idea connects/does not connect with the 'memes' of Richard Dawkins.

I like this 'closer to truth series' but I think they should include more people from the purely 'philosophical' and the purely theistic viewpoints as I think it would give a more balanced and complete coverage of the topic under discussion. I do nonetheless, like the general approach of Robert Lawrence Kuhn to such topics.

Overall Ken, I think we would be on common ground in many of our viewpoints but I do disagree with your concern over the term 'believe,' regardless of the context of its use.
I am concerned about what people do, not what they think they might do based on their personal beliefs.
It is very important to have adequate checks and balances within our society to prevent any nefarious b****** from gaining power and influence and be able to remove them easily if they become such. All people must be educated to as high a standard as possible, at no cost to them. Money must be removed as the controlling factor for individual lives.
We must insist on equality of status and value for all humans and we must protect all ecological systems. If we achieve that then I think the human race could become a benevolent interstellar species, which exists on many planets. If we don't, then I fear for our survival.
I for one remain confident that humans will continue to improve.

For instance upper class Mexicans and the upper levels of the rare middle class are never tortured but the lower classes are routinely and impersonally tortured without exception when they are arrested. The arrests are rarely the results of a police report . but usually result from a denunciation. The reason for torture is that torture is the only information retrieval system that they know of.

I bacame a "Born again athiest at the age of 17 — Ken Edwards

I am encouraged by the thought we would most likely be united in opposition against those who behave the way the Mexican police you describe above, behave.
We will wait in forlorn hope, for an eternity, if we wait for gods to relieve/prevent/stop human suffering and injustice. Only other humans can achieve that.
People of the world, UNITE!

Yet my never being able to know such things is of no concern if I don't concern myself with believing. and remain satisfied with entertaining. — Janus

I think you are splitting hairs. Do you believe the words you typed above are correct?

But I have since noticed that believing the lies that are told to one or believing two different things at the same time or pretending to believe them or coming to believe ones own lies is, alas, very common every where. My God! - just look at the remnants of the republican party — Ken Edwards

Just in case you are not already aware of this Ken. If you highlight text typed by another member, a small tag appears on the left called 'quote,' this allows you to quote what someone else has typed that you wish to reply to, It saves having to copy/paste etc.

I agree that trying not to be duped by fake news or what is said by nefarious people who pretend to be good people is difficult. It does not turn me away from establishing my own personal belief system it just reminds me to check all sources carefully and be always willing to challenge my own even deeply held beliefs, if new evidence informs me I must, by virtue of its empirical strength.
I have identified my political position as socialist and humanist since my teenage years.
I remain so and consider Tories in the UK or republicans in the USA, political opponents.

God is a major criminal and should receive tens of thousands of murder conviction. — Ken Edwards

If it existed then I would agree it is a monster but lucky for it (god), I, as an atheist am 99.9% convinced that it never has existed. Humans must stop scapegoating gods. The bad things that humans do are down to us, not gods.

That the use of the word "believe" is very tricky and should be carefully considered when used. — Ken Edwards

I agree that 'I believe' indicates a strong level of conviction but you agreed earlier that you must have a very strong conviction towards a particular viewpoint such as freedom or democracy, if you are willing to kill other humans who try to remove it by force. I would fight against fascism to the death. I would also fight against autocracies/aristocracies/plutocracies/cults of celebrities etc. I would do so because I believe them to be unjust systems.

From your answers to the questions I posed to you Ken, above the point or the quote below, It seems to me that as a young 17 or 18 year old soldier you did believe IN the cause you were fighting for and those beliefs have not changed as you just confirmed as a glorious 97 year old!

Should I stop another from killing someone because I BELIEVE they are not justified in doing so or help them.

No, I can't stop people from doing things because I am 97 years old and I can't walk — Ken Edwards

My question was asking for you to advise those who do have the power to stop such. I was not suggesting that you could personally stop such, although, after a few single malts, you probably could.

This is heavy stuff. I would have to know you very, very well along with your family and friends over a long period of time in order to be sure that you, yourself, were not delusional — Ken Edwards

I appreciate what you mean but it's no different from your 'when I spoke to some of the German prisoners' memory. Did you know for sure that the comments expressed were supported by every prisoner in that group? It's like that biblical story about sodom and gomorrah. I mean really, that idiotic angel could not find any decent folks at all in either city! I for one, don't believe that biblical BS.
That does not mean I am attempting to invalidate the impression these soldiers gave you Ken I am just trying to use a wider (perhaps I might even risk the word wiser) beamed torch, at those soldiers and what they might have chosen to say to one of their very young captors compared to what they truly felt inside. Can you really trust what traumatised captives say, who perhaps are beginning to realise what duped fools they were and what destruction they have brought down on themselves?

I never knew I was building me when I grew up. That was 90 some years ago and I don't remember. But I like the sound of the words. — Ken Edwards

But as a glorious 97-year-old, looking back. Can you see the building methodologies/strategies you employed now?

I am an American and, like most Americans, I got lots and lots and lots of foundational beliefs. I got foundational beliefs I aint even used yet — Ken Edwards

I, personally hate and despise the action of "believing" — Ken Edwards

How do you 'marry' these two seemingly contradictory viewpoints Ken?

But I still can't figure out how we managed to get from the meaning of a single word to carrots and mice.
Please explain. — Ken Edwards

:lol: I can only offer the following old observation "Out of little acorns, big oak trees grow!"

I’m suggesting that it’s not a personal foundation but a group foundation. We don’t need to believe ourselves, do we??? — praxis

Well, to use a simple analogy. If you want to bake a cake the majority of people will like then pay very careful attention to the ingredients. I know this is open to abuse and such creations as 'Trump/Putin/BoJo cakes' or in the group sense, cult of celebrity/autocratic rule/plutocratic capitalism cake. The group foundation can indeed be made up of mercenaries or duped automatons but I think if you what to create a foundational group that's a force for good in this world, then you need its ingredients to be individuals who care about nurturing, maintaining and progressing the human race as well as making sure that attention to the fate of the human race does not have such side effects as the abuse of natural ecology or the extinction of fauna or the pollution and exploitation of any 'space' beyond the boundaries of Earth.

So, I think that the world is spiritual but 1) science can't say anything about spirituality, and 2) a materialist viewpoint is self consistent but incomplete. All that exists is this world, matter is real, and matter and the spirit are identical. Are you open to these ideas? I see the world and know it's just as I see it (objectively), but paradoxically I don't know what it is yet. Not until I complete my life on earth will I know full reality. Maybe a materialistic spirituality is possible! — Gregory

What meaning are you assigning to the word 'spirituality?'
The original meaning simply referred to 'to move' or 'to be animate.'
But now it's related to words such as 'soul' or a noncorporeal existence or a ghostly presence etc.
I assume you are referring to its more recent meanings than its original one.
If that is the case then it holds no meaning for me personally at all.
Science can state a very basic comment regarding the 'soul' or 'spiritual' references that are used today and that is that there is no proof such proposals have any existence, at all. This is my position as well.
I agree that a materialist viewpoint is incomplete as science is incomplete but science is still working on gaining new knowledge so I remain a confident materialist and I reject anything labeled supernatural or even metaphysical. Can you offer me an example of what you would consider 'matter' and 'spirit' and are 'identical?' It would need to be an example I have never conceived of before as I would reject any suggestions like consciousness or contrived 'hippy style' phrases such as 'the essence/source of the 'force' of nature etc. I am not open to theosophist ideologies such or Buddism, Taoism etc.

I think your last few sentences above are nice and I feel a great sense of common ground with the underlying sentiments you present. I too have a great sense of wonder about the basics.
Who am I REALLY? Why am I here? What is my ultimate fate? I also am attracted to the basic theistic tenet that humans are of great significance to the Universe as WE give IT significance and meaning because we ask questions and through us, the universe may be trying to emerge/gain objective knowledge of who, why, and what it is. This is why I raise a tiny eyebrow towards the idea that panpsychism is an emerging universal consciousness but I consider panpsychism to be compatible with the materialist viewpoint and could be part of that 'incompleteness' you cite but I have very little confidence, at the moment, that it is a valid proposal.
I am also very much in agreement with Carl Sagans 'great demotions,' when it comes to humans thinking about how important they may be.
I remain 99.9% convinced that labels such as 'supernatural,' 'metaphysical,' 'spiritual,' 'soul,' etc are vacant of all useful meaning at the moment and need reassignment to more useful and accurate meanings.

Rather, I think the question is how can you build who we are without some kind of foundational beliefs. — praxis

Sure, that's just a projection of what I stated. If you have your own foundational beliefs established within then you can start to try to figure out others using that reference. I am not suggesting your own foundations should be utterly chiseled in stone but you have to have some strength in your foundations.
I am a fan of the delphic maxim 'Know Thyself.' Although I would probably add 'before attempting to know others.'

Mad stuff, insane stuff. To the effect that fully justified them waging war and killing millions of people.
They had firmly Believed that it was morally wrong for them Not to kill. — Ken Edwards

Did/do you believe it was correct/justified/advisable to fight against the nazis?
When you heard these surrendered soldiers speak the way they did, did that strengthen your belief that you were correct in your personal efforts to stop them from continuing to do what they were doing?
Do you think that it's important to believe IN the justness of a cause if you are going to kill in its name?
Should I stop another from killing someone because I BELIEVE they are not justified in doing so or help them if I BELIEVE their target is an evil nefarious b****** who might also threaten me and those I care about?
If I reject believing IN anything then can I still make judgments on what I consider right and wrong?
How can you build who you are without some kind of foundational beliefs?

The following from:
https://www.gotquestions.org/a-priori-posteriori-fortiori.html
may help:

A much less-commonly used term, a fortiori, describes something related to a priori knowledge but not exactly the same. The term a fortiori means “from the stronger,” and it refers to arguments that seek to prove a “smaller” point by appealing to an already-proven “larger” point. For instance, if a man says he can afford to spend $100, we assume he can afford to spend $10. If drinking one sip of a liquid is fatal, we assume drinking an entire cup is also fatal. If a man can hold his breath underwater for three minutes, we assume he’s able to hold his breath for one minute. If it’s considered a sin to punch someone, we assume stabbing him would also be sinful.

When we argue a specific point based on some larger or broader established idea, we are using a fortiori arguments. In common dialogue, we often use phrases such as “even more so” or “all the more.” This is, in general terms, an appeal to a fortiori logic, and the examples given might all be framed using that kind of language.

Technically speaking, a fortiori arguments are not ironclad to the same extent as truly a priori statements. In the prior examples, if the man in question had been given a signed check for $100 by a friend, he might only be able to spend exactly $100. In other words, it’s logically possible that he can “afford” to spend $100, but not $10, since he has no other money. So, while a fortiori arguments are reasonable, they are not logically absolute, so they are not truly a priori

So based on the examples given:
If a man can afford to spend $100 then we assume he can afford to spend $10 is a fortiori possible.
If a man can afford to spend $100 then it is not 'a fortiori' possible that he can afford to spend greater than $100

Thanks for the clrifications as to energy and existence. It seems to me you've adopted the method of Fetcher over that of the romantics by arguing from science to philosophy. Also, aren't you arguing from time and what is done in time to an eternalism that is foreign to our senses? — Gregory

Yes, I argue from science and my own personal philosophy. I have an often admitted, limited academic command of philosophy, so I don't know who fletcher is/was or who the 'romantics are/were but I am willing to do some background reading on such, if you wish to link me to such, if you think any such reading would confirm or combat my viewpoints on the origin of our Universe story.
I think science can speak to the metaphysical suggestions posited by philosophy, in that science can suggest that which is labeled metaphysical, is simply a conflation or misunderstanding of the existence of that which human science cannot yet confirm/observe/detect, like dark matter or dark energy. You can label such, currently, as 'metaphysical,' in the sense that it's 'beyond' physics for now but it's stupid, imo to label the metaphysical as meaning 'after' physics as under that reference, the metaphysical does not exist as there is no such thing as 'after' physics.
I don't see why a 'bouncing' universe where as a consequence of each manifestation or new inflation/expansion, time or t is 'reset' to 0, is 'foreign to our senses', especially since time is relative and death is the end of all sensory experience but such experience can be reset. when birth causes new sensory experience or repetition of sensory experience for a 'new life,' in a similar conceptual way to a 'new universe.'

Sensory existence in the Universe has existed and does 'bounce' or 'oscillate' via death and birth since 'life' first sprang into existence from 'before' life or 'life' came from 'nonlife,' another example of how something can come into existence from before it existed but not from 'nothing.'.
Each manifestation of life, is, however, different from, or is a variety of, life, just as each new universe is different from any previous one.

If moving you see the mindless spark before your nose. Its still with us in the vacuum. Energy fluctuating all over space — Frankly

Such would not be the mindless spark I am referring to as my reference is merely a proposed conception for those who insist on a first cause in the origin of the universe story, that started the 'bounce,' i am simply applying the same 'special pleading' that theism uses to insist that god is eternal and needs no first cause. Well, I am suggesting that 'existence' or 'something' or 'energy' is eternal and needs no first cause and that the 'divine spark' can be replaced by the 'mindless spark' or god as the first cause which ends the infinite regress can also be a spark with no 'mind' or 'intent' behind it that no longer exists so it DOES NOT connect with your description of phenomena which DOES still exist.
My suggestion is that a god that STILL exists outside of space and time is total BS.
If such a 'prime mover,' 'trigger' did ever exist, it does not exist now and when it did, it was mindless and had no intent.

That's a picture of how it looks. — Frankly

you mean it's an artist's impression of some colored shapes inside a space made up of little background squares which probably bear little resemblance to the actual broiling activity of the vacuum of space. I am not impressed nor do I now feel an imperative to draw you a picture of a mindless spark!

Well, I just made the bubbling quantum vacuum my avatar. It's a photograph though. Not a video — Frankly

and?

A mindless spark? How does that look like? — Frankly

Without will or intent is how I would describe it. I have no idea how to provide you with an artist's impression/expression. I could offer images like a grain of sand or ask you to picture a quark or a superstring in your head but I don't think any such images are sufficient?
Do you need a picture of energy to accept energy exists?
The theist seems to accept the existence of their monotheistic god without any universally presented graven image. The polytheists have always had their graven images.

That is reasonable — Jackson

:up:

The something from nothing here is not a real something from nothing — Xodarap

'Something,' is eternal in an oscillating Universe. You don't need to 'start' the oscillation if it is eternal and if you insist that you do then that's what I label the mindless spark which has no remaining existence and is of zero significance to THIS Universe. No god, no 'divine' spark required.
If the theists can logically insist on an eternal god then that idea is easily matched/equaled/balanced by the mindless spark and the eternally oscillating Universe, IMHO.

Sorry for my late respose. Away celebrating family birthdays!

But does the zero energy universe ring a bell for you? — Gregory

Yes, absolutely, 'positive' energy created by matter balancing with the 'negative,' energy created by gravity. This is backed up by most cosmologists today. I prefer the explanation in Stephen Hawkings in 'A Brief History of Time:' The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Many cosmologists/physicists argue that the evidence Krauss used to suggest that the total energy is zero was flawed, so they argue about some of his methodology but few argue with his conclusion so he is still correct and the calculations involved confirm the positive and negative energy balance.

My point was that it doesn't make much sense to say gravity and matter together is nothing — Gregory

But they are not nothing, they DO NOT destroy each other as in matter/antimatter annihilation, they balance each other! The fact that their TOTALITY is ZERO does not remove them both from existence! The fact that they balance suggests that the 'existence' of the Universe is eternal. You cannot destroy energy, you can only change its form. Energy is conserved.

Existence balances and is eternal, there has never been 'nothing.'
This does not mean the Universe cannot 'bounce' between states of pure energy and energy becoming mass via M=E/Csquared and combining into galaxies and lifeforms until entropy returns everything back to energy etc. The bounce/oscillating Universe. No first cause is required, no something from nothing is required because 'nothing' is not a possible state for 'existence.' Something has always existed and I think this is the main message from Krauss and many others. The origin story was never a 'mind of god,' it was just a 'field of potential,' a mindless spark (singularity) which inflated.
This is the best science can do imo, at this present time and to me, it is far far more feasible to me than any supernatural 'god did it' proposal through its whim, its 'eternal intent of will' as claimed by theists, .
Science brought us to this point, theists have simply claimed everything science has 'found out so far' to be nothing more than humans learning a little more about the true mind/intent of god or how god did it. :lol: Yet they also contradict themselves with BS like 'god is outside of space and time' and 'you cannot know the mind of god.' Lazy excuses for accepting the musings of lazy thinkers who don't have the ability or can't be bothered to learn the science. (I am not putting you in this category.)

https://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing

So something is nothing and nothing is something. I am picking up Hegel's Logic right now to try and figure this out better — Gregory

I clicked on your link but I could not get passed the cookies window as I don't accept such cookies.
I don't see any value in your equivalence of something = nothing. Even if I accepted this point it would merely add to my position that 'something' has always existed as you are suggesting the two labels are synonymous so why would we not choose to drop the label 'nothing' as a valid label to use in the origin story of the universe. There was always something and that something was never the mind/will/intent of a god.

Incidentally, I favor agnosticism and I am a Star Trek fan. — val p miranda

Well, agnosticism is a step up from convinced theist imo.
Of course, you are a Star Trek fan, as I am.

Lawrence Krauss believe nothing comes from nothing — Gregory

Mr Krauss has stated many times that 'nothing is the absence of something,' and the fact that the Universe is something then it follows that existence needs no first cause. If you have evidence of him writing or stating the words 'nothing comes from nothing,' then please provide the link.

The first nothing is the world, divided between positive reality and negative reality wherein each cancels the others — Gregory

In what way is positive and negative charge, nothing?

and the second nothing is spacetime. — Gregory

In what way is spacetime nothing. You need to appreciate that 'nothing' means no way to type/utter/think about the meaning of the term. It means no existence, so there is no way for it to define itself. I agree with those that suggest the concept denies its own existence and leads to the conclusion that 'something' is eternal. I think that 'eternal' is existence and is not god and needs no god.

Having parts of reality canceling energy almost sounds like idealism however. If objects and ideas are not different in essence, then maybe you really can see a chair as existing even though it's energy is canceled by something else which is negative. — Gregory

I think you are conflating matter-antimatter annihilation, with existence. The Universe has content because matter-antimatter annihilation is asymmetric. It produces 'leftovers.' This means chairs really do exist as do you and I.

I don't see how his thesis makes sense from a purely material perspective, but it's interesting — Gregory

I think Krauss' book 'A Universe from nothing' makes a great deal of sense from a material perspective.
Quote actual words from it that you disagree with and we can dialogue about the quotes you choose if you want.