# A Universe From Nothing



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> This is a claim about the nature of reality. It isn't something that can be believed or disbelieved as an opinion.


there are 3 popular claims about the origin of the universe.
god.
nothing.
universe.
you picked god. which states god is a necessary requirement, therefore god exists.
roland is defending nothing, which states in fact something can come from nothing.
i personally choose the universe, which states the universe has always been in some form or another.
now how do you go about disproving the other 2, which is what you are trying to do? 
ps. its not the only alternative, l5.


----------



## Roland Khan (May 10, 2009)

Rinying said:


> there are 3 popular claims about the origin of the universe.
> god.
> nothing.
> universe.
> ...



Technically I believe we are supporting the same idea. I just say ''nothing'' in the same context as current physicists describe it. Which isn't the same ''nothing'' as is generally accepted as in everyday life, it's a different definition and concept of what it means to be ''nothing''. You'd have to watch the video to get a better understanding of it, being that I can't describe it half as well as he can, but I understand it well enough to where it makes sense.

The way quantum mechanics works and the concept of ''nothing'' being dark energy (if I remember correctly), then ''nothing'' will be in constant fluctuation and something will always come out of it. Again, watch the video....but I can sure as hell tell you it makes more sense than supernatural, and it's actually supported by evidence/math/experiments instead of ancient mythology.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Rinying said:


> there are 3 popular claims about the origin of the universe.
> god.
> nothing.
> universe.
> ...


If the universe always was then there is an infinite series of past events. We could not arrive at the present moment with an infinite series of past events, because it would never be able to ultimately explain how we got to the present moment in the first place. You'd simply be appealing endlessly to a cause that caused a cause, never arriving at an ultimate cause and thus explaining the existence of nothing at all.


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Gonna get comfy, grab some food and watch this tonight. I will comment on it later.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> If the universe always was then there is an infinite series of past events. We could not arrive at the present moment with an infinite series of past events, because it would never be able to ultimately explain how we got to the present moment in the first place. You'd simply be appealing endlessly to a cause that caused a cause, never arriving at an ultimate cause and thus explaining the existence of nothing at all.


lets see....
to counter, lets apply this logic to god. if your appealing to god as a first cause, you have to explain how god came to be. you state he is the first cause, correct? he has always existed by your own words. if i state the universe as the first cause, or rather, the universe has always existed, then you are essentially stating "but the universe has to have a first cause", and then saying "but god has always existed". the universe just is, l5. it is constantly changing, but it has always existed. 
and @Roland787 i think we may be supporting the same theory, but with minor differences.


----------



## Arclight (Feb 10, 2010)

Humans and their overestimation at how clever they are.. 

Since someone brought up Carl Sagan. 

It isn't enough just to be able to explain the origin of life if you cannot explain the raw materials and fine tuned parameters of chemistry and physics.. _To really make an apple pie from scratch you must begin by making the universe.

Carl Sagan 


_


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Rinying said:


> lets see....
> to counter, lets apply this logic to god. if your appealing to god as a first cause, you have to explain how god came to be. you state he is the first cause, correct? he has always existed by your own words. if i state the universe as the first cause, or rather, the universe has always existed, then you are essentially stating "but the universe has to have a first cause", and then saying "but god has always existed". the universe just is, l5. it is constantly changing, but it has always existed.
> and @_Roland787_ i think we may be supporting the same theory, but with minor differences.


The cause of the universe must transcend time and space because time and space are part of the universe. Time and space have only existed as long as the universe has existed.


----------



## BlueSeven (Nov 19, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> This is a claim about the nature of reality. It isn't something that can be believed or disbelieved as an opinion.


Right, but you at the same time have to accept that for different reasons, other people will have different hypothesis on the nature of reality. In terms of Krauss' book I tend to agree whole-heartedly and think it is a very convincing and logical view into the problem of how the world started, however I think it's silly to believe that those who already have their own God hypothesis should immediately have to change, due to the compelling evidence. Often Scientists don't change due to the compelling evidence, and they're in a field in which change is the most important thing.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> So how does something from nothing make sense to you then? How could anything be if be wasn't?


Watch the video. He explains.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Oct 26, 2010)

Also, this isn't the debate forum. :happy:

We have several debates on the subject going on in the debate forum. 

~~~~

I considered Physics as a college major and wish I'd stuck with it. I took Quantum Physics when I returned to school. Fascinating stuff. 

I think I wanna marry Lawrence Krauss. lol


----------



## Diogenes (Jun 30, 2011)

I don't understand this three pages long derail: Krauss isn't talking about nothing in the meaning that it has in ontology, he's talking about the thinnest amount of something that we know of and how this could have created the universe. He calls it nothing because it's barely anything, he's just saving time when he speaks so instead of resorting to a periphrasis every single time he simply says "nothing", the same way "observable universe" becomes "universe" when scientists talk to laymen.


----------



## slender (Sep 28, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> *The cause of the universe must transcend time and space because time and space are part of the universe.* Time and space have only existed as long as the universe has existed.


first one, who says it has to? second, why do you say time and space have only existed as long as the universe has?


----------



## sofort99 (Mar 27, 2010)

Roland787 said:


> Research and discovery. The ''god always has been'' is such a cop out response that refuses to actually go in search of a real answer.
> 
> How do you come to the conclusion that some mystical supernatural being did everything?
> 
> ...


I really like to laugh at people that think that in the greater scheme of things, somehow we see the "big picture" any better than a cave man hiding from the thunder.

That kind of hubris = hilarious.

And I write that as somebody that is co-writing an abstract on testing for type I parallel universes with entanglement, using a base number so big if the "zeros" were the size of an atom, they would fill the Hubble bubble.

It's funny really... every now and then, maybe a couple of times a year, I get a brief, fleeting flash of comprehension. It's far closer to a religious "enlightenment" experience than anything else. I suppose maybe that somehow disqualifies me from doing the math?


----------



## Death Persuades (Feb 17, 2012)

Guy seems bent on finding proof of what he wants the answer to be... No better than any religious fanatic.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Diogenes said:


> I don't understand this three pages long derail: Krauss isn't talking about nothing in the meaning that it has in ontology, he's talking about the thinnest amount of something that we know of and how this could have created the universe. He calls it nothing because it's barely anything, he's just saving time when he speaks so instead of resorting to a periphrasis every single time he simply says "nothing", the same way "observable universe" becomes "universe" when scientists talk to laymen.


Well he should probably stop treating it as if it has philosophical implications then. He should never call it "nothing" if it's actually _something_. Give it a better name than "nothing." As my first post in this thread implies, you can't even do science anymore on something that comes out of nothing.


----------



## Kilgore Trout (Jun 25, 2010)

Snakecharmer said:


> A Universe From Nothing | Lawrence Krauss
> 
> 
> Looking forward to watching the entire video tomorrow night (because what else would I do on a Friday night?). :wink:


Thanks for the video. He has quite a few lectures and interviews on YouTube. If you have the time, you should check out the 2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate. J. Richard Gott, Jim Holt, Lawrence Krauss, Charles Seife, Eve Silverstein, and Neil Degrasse Tyson, debate about the existence of nothing. It's very entertaining stuff.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

To me, even though what Lawrence is saying is backed with evidence and is correct[afaik], saying that the sum-product of the universes energy and forces is 0 doesn't explain why that 0 became a [-10 & +10] i.e. why quantum fluctuation happens or why it should happen.

This isn't a problem for my belief in a zero sum universe, just my understanding behind it.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

If I ever answered where the Universe came from before the Big Bang and I said "well, there was nothing, and then one day the universe just appeared out of nowhere and then expanded" they would have ridiculed the hell out of me as being unscientific and fantastical.


----------



## Thomas60 (Aug 7, 2011)

Just obtained lawrence krauss's book (coincidence when visiting friends), will see if reading it has more utility than this presentation.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Well he should probably stop treating it as if it has philosophical implications then. He should never call it "nothing" if it's actually _something_. Give it a better name than "nothing." As my first post in this thread implies, you can't even do science anymore on something that comes out of nothing.


Nothing=no-thing. People use most words so loosely without understanding those words. And then you must forget about the word in order to find truth because truth is beyond thought. Alas (?), there are only a few people in the world who can do that. So science will never provide us with an answer because thought is limited: Thought is memory of you and the accumulation of consciousness that is known to all of us us so far is also nothing more than memory, and experience/experiments based on those memories. Memory is the remnant of an experience so thought is limited and therefore science is limited) Is truth limited?


----------



## BlueSeven (Nov 19, 2012)

RobynC said:


> If I ever answered where the Universe came from before the Big Bang and I said "well, there was nothing, and then one day the universe just appeared out of nowhere and then expanded" they would have ridiculed the hell out of me as being unscientific and fantastical.


But that's not what he's doing, he's taking years upon years of research and consolidating it into a book, which he has titled as such.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

He tries to play it off like he's actually figured out the ultimate cause of the universe when he hasn't.


----------



## All in Twilight (Oct 12, 2012)

BlueSeven said:


> But that's not what he's doing, he's taking years upon years of research and consolidating it into a book, which he has titled as such.


Throw away all the books and studies and the universe will unfold itself.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


>


Yeah, and so what?


> An appeal to intuition is an argument that because a proposition does not match one's experience of how things work in general, or how we believe they should work, then that proposition is not true.Intuition is based on our prior experience and understandings. An appeal to intuition is essentially an argument that for something to be true it must be similar to what one already believes to be true.


Appeal to Intuition - EvoWiki

So it doesn't make sense to you, so it can't be true?

Solid objects passing through one another without tearing holes/causing collision forces made no sense, but guess what? That's what's making your USB drive work RIGHT NOW. 
http://www.howstuffworks.com/flash-memory1.htm

This is the problem with religious logic: it all seems to hinge on what makes sense in our everyday experience, when the universe and its causes lie beyond our everyday experience. If we relied on our everyday experience, we'd not be communicating now because electricity was once believed to be not under our control whatsoever, much less controlled in such a fashion that gives us near-instant communication.

That's why science works--it doesn't just trust its intuition. It goes by what is observed. The ideas of "nothing" and "something" are human constructs; the universe need not heed this because it is out perception.

Have you read into experiments/math behind what they say? A lot of it is watered down CONSIDERABLY to even below high-school science standards to make it palatable. They aren't giving out PhDs and Nobel Prizes for a Discovery/History channel debriefing. Look it up...

















The only good about that gif is: THE FUCK IS UP WITH HIS HAIR?:laughing: icant


----------



## CoopV (Nov 6, 2011)

I think instead of something having an origin or cause it's better to just say everything just is. 

Instead of viewing things linear as having a start and end I prefer to view it circular as having no start or end. Everything was, is, and forever will be.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Yeah, and so what?
> 
> Appeal to Intuition - EvoWiki
> 
> ...


You realize that science would never be able to explain how something can come from nothing if that were true, right?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> You realize that science would never be able to explain how something can come from nothing if that were true, right?


Yeah, but the point is that using human-prescribed notions of "something" and "nothing" has *nothing*:crazy: to do with how the Universe operates. If you, like Alter2Banned, wish to confine things to your human intuition, then you have already left the realm of total reason and have stayed in the confines of what your inuition tells you. If something that physically happens (tunneling/entanglement) defied Einsetin's intuition and many physicists till this day, I'm inclined to think that our human intuition is not how the universe must operate.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Yeah, but the point is that using human-prescribed notions of "something" and "nothing" has *nothing*:crazy: to do with how the Universe operates. If you, like Alter2Banned, wish to confine things to your human intuition, then you have already left the realm of total reason and have stayed in the confines of what your inuition tells you. If something that physically happens (tunneling/entanglement) defied Einsetin's intuition and many physicists till this day, I'm inclined to think that our human intuition is not how the universe must operate.


So you're saying magic exists then?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> So you're saying magic exists then?


Yeah, this is that point when you try to conflate words and clutch straws in order to try to invalidate naysayers. I do applaud you, however, you get right to the point without spouting a bunch of nebulous and antiquated science like Alter2Banned.

The man !=the universe. Controlling electricity in the 1700s was witchcraft and magic; it is science today. Dunno what to tell you.
man !=the universe.
man !=the universe.

It's not magic; it arises from empirical and mathematical analysis which can be found online. Granted, a great deal goes over our heads as it's tied to very abstract maths.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Yeah, this is that point when you try to conflate words and clutch straws in order to try to invalidate naysayers. I do applaud you, however, you get right to the point without spouting a bunch of nebulous and antiquated science like Alter2Banned.
> 
> The man !=the universe. Controlling electricity in the 1700s was witchcraft and magic; it is science today. Dunno what to tell you.
> man !=the universe.
> ...


And the point is that Krauss hasn't actually discovered that some things can come from nothing with no cause. He's simply found another cause of something whose cause is as of yet unknown.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> And the point is that Krauss hasn't actually discovered that some things can come from nothing with no cause. He's simply found another cause of something whose cause is as of yet unknown.


He has a theory, which is nothing but a speculation based upon evidence that is peer-reviewed yet has not been accepted as a law or fact. He has never declared it as fact, or he would've won a Nobel Prize as of now. Again, he has documents aside from youtube/whatever that details his findings/reasoning.

There's still more evidence in his corner than in a book that miscalculated: the age of the Earth, anthropological evidence of intermediate animals, etc. Furuthermore, you are arguing something from nothing when that's indeed what your "God" is. He always existed, from what? He was just always there...from nothing. It would seem this would not be counterintuitive to you at all.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Krauss is garbage. There is no "nothing" anywhere in the universe. The "something" is coming from already existing energy fields. The stuff already exists. It violates the conservation of energy to get something from nothing. This "stuff" has already exists, it just changes states. 

A physicist in a New York Times review tore up Krauss pretty good:



> What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain *arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being _no particles at all_. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states.





> But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of_elementary physical stuff_. The true relativistic-quantum-field-*theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple _absence_of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Krauss is garbage. There is no "nothing" anywhere in the universe. The "something" is coming from already existing energy fields. The stuff already exists. It violates the conservation of energy to get something from nothing. This "stuff" has already exists, it just changes states.
> 
> A physicist in a New York Times review tore up Krauss pretty good:


AFIAK (not a PhD physicist):

The conservation law holds true for after the big bang, when what we know now as the universe existed. We don't know what "was " before, and it wouldn't violate any laws because "universal laws" did not exist as there was not a universe to be had.

Also, he has a theory; it is not fact. They're are other scientists that have other theories, such as everlasting fields etc. The moments before the big bang currently elude physics as our physics is for our universe, not something (or nothing) that existed prior. 

It's a battle for who can get it right; Krauss is under more scruitiny, IMO, because of his religious involvments (or lack therof). You can find physicists ripping eachother apart all day.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> AFIAK (not a PhD physicist):
> 
> The conservation law holds true for after the big bang, when what we know now as the universe existed. We don't know what "was " before, and it wouldn't violate any laws because "universal laws" did not exist as there was not a universe to be had.
> 
> ...


And the only examples Krauss is giving and using are based exclusively on observations and knowledge of post big bang physics. He's talking about quantum fields in space. Before the Big Bang, there was no quantum fields or space. So you just poked another hole in his argument. How can quantum fields create a universe when the universe came before these fields? Considering we know nothing about pre big bang physics, how the hell can he even say how stuff was created then? 

The bottom line is that Krauss is basing his "universe from nothing" on the idea that things create themselves from nothing in the present universe. But that premise is totally wrong. It doesn't come from nothing. Nothing is ever created or destroyed. For something to be created there would have to be a net gain to the universe, which there never is. It's just wrong top to bottom and an incredibly lazy argument.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> And the only examples Krauss is giving and using are based exclusively on observations and knowledge of post big bang physics. He's talking about quantum fields in space. Before the Big Bang, there was no quantum fields or space. So you just poked another hole in his argument. How can quantum fields create a universe when the universe came before these fields? Considering we know nothing about pre big bang physics, how the hell can he even say how stuff was created then?
> 
> The bottom line is that Krauss is basing his "universe from nothing" on the idea that things create themselves from nothing in the present universe. But that premise is totally wrong. It doesn't come from nothing. Nothing is ever created or destroyed. For something to be created there would have to be a net gain to the universe, which there never is. It's just wrong top to bottom and an incredibly lazy argument.


I'm not so sure you can discredit something based upon what we observe today; furthermore, for absolutes on this matter, you are going to have to delve heavily into QFT, which is something I admit to not having much of a clue about as I am no cosmologist.

However, there's no lazy argument here because you are doing exactly what I accused 5Ls of doing:
"Because this is how it exists now in the Universe, it must have been true, even before the Universe." 

This is a fallacy of intuition. It is very likely that said quantum fields and the universe propagated each other; perhaps the field is not begotten solely by the universe but was made prior to the big bang. We only have experience of it being made "after the universe" came into existence.

You can't site lazy/faulty at the moment because Krauss admits that what happened prior to the big bang is still a mystery. Some others posit everylasting bosonic fields that gave rise to all matter (Higgs field). NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BB; Physics as we know it may have been TOTALLY different.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> I'm not so sure you can discredit something based upon what we observe today; furthermore, for absolutes on this matter, you are going to have to delve heavily into QFT, which is something I admit to not having much of a clue about as I am no cosmologist.
> 
> However, there's no lazy argument here because you are doing exactly what I accused 5Ls of doing:
> "Because this is how it exists now in the Universe, it must have been true, even before the Universe."
> ...


But Krauss is basing his entire argument on what is seen today. And he is totally misrepresenting it on top of it. Krauss is saying that that there is a mechanism for something to come out of nothing in the current universe. He goes on about virtual particles and stuff like that. But again, it is totally wrong, and I'm sure he knows it. Nothing is ever created in our universe. So anyway, he takes his false premise, that something is created from nothing in the current universe, and says that this same mechanism could be responsible for creating a universe. But again, that mechanism is wrong.There is no something being created from nothing in our universe. Nowhere. It's impossible. His argument is flatly wrong. I mean, how am I supposed to take a guy seriously who is telling me that something comes from nothing in our current universe? He knows he isn't technically right but he's selling books like hotcakes to internet atheists who aren't smart enough to see the immediate and glaring fatal flaw in his argument, but feel clever when quoting it, so what does he care?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But Krauss is basing his entire argument on what is seen today. And he is totally misrepresenting it on top of it. Krauss is saying that that there is a mechanism for something to come out of nothing in the current universe. *He goes on about virtual particles and stuff like that.* But again, it is totally wrong, and I'm sure he knows it. Nothing is ever created in our universe. So anyway, he takes his false premise, that something is created from nothing in the current universe, and says that this same mechanism could be responsible for creating a universe. But again, that mechanism is wrong.There is no something being created from nothing in our universe. Nowhere. It's impossible. His argument is flatly wrong. I mean, how am I supposed to take a guy seriously who is telling me that something comes from nothing in our current universe? He knows he isn't technically right but he's selling books like hotcakes to internet atheists who aren't smart enough to see the immediate and glaring fatal flaw in his argument, but feel clever when quoting it, so what does he care?


You're handwaving over a very critical part--virtual particles do indeed seem to come from nothing. In order to answer you in more depth, I am going to have to review VPs again. But I do recall that as of right now, it is believed that VPs do indeed spontaneously appear due to what we thought to be massless particles having mass, and the Higgs Boson having extra mass than what was calculated.




You can't just say "he talks about VPs and stuff" and not go into detail. That's central to the idea. Also, your claim about conservation may not even hold true before the big bang. 

I'll return tomorrow to further discuss VPs, but it is late.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Virtual particles are useful mathematical fictions. They aren't real. And they have to disappear within a planck time, which is far less than a second, in order not to violate the conservation of energy. So anything being "created" has to immediately disappear. And they don't come from nothing. Here is Nobel Prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek explaining them:



> These virtual particles come to be and pass away very quickly, without going very far. Remember, we’ve only run into them in the process of making a short-time, high-resolution snapshot! We don’t see them, in any ordinary sense, unless *we supply the energy and momentum needed to create them.*


So even if virtual particles were real, or could create universes. That universe would have to disappear in less than a second. There is no arguing that.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Virtual particles are useful mathematical fictions. They aren't real. And they have to disappear within a planck time, which is far less than a second, in order not to violate the conservation of energy. So anything being "created" has to immediately disappear. And they don't come from nothing. Here is Nobel Prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek explaining them:
> 
> 
> 
> So even if virtual particles were real, or could create universes. That universe would have to disappear in less than a second. There is no arguing that.


This is again, noted after the big bang. Who is so say that this was not the case prior? That's what Krauss seems to be alluding to. Also, he is NOT the only person positing such claims. Who is to say that energy and momentum as we know it existed prior to the BB; we don't know..sorry. 

I am not that well-versed in VPs as I have not done anything with cosmology. 


A bigger oddity is your sudden appearance to reply to my posts. It's very odd that some of you "new members" join for the sole purpose of replying to religious naysayers posts. I'm inclined to think you're an alt of some others person here. It's not that hard to use proxies.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> This is again, noted after the big bang. Who is so say that this was not the case prior? That's what Krauss seems to be alluding to. Also, he is NOT the only person positing such claims. Who is to say that energy and momentum as we know it existed prior to the BB; we don't know..sorry.
> 
> I am not that well-versed in VPs as I have not done anything with cosmology.
> 
> ...


Why is it odd to reply to posts? I have to join sometime. Never even heard of this forum before last night when I found it searching for something else. You sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. 

Anyway, once again, KRAUSS IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO POST BIG BANG PHYSICS. HE IS REFERENCING POST BIG BANG PHYSICS. THOSE PHYSICS ARE WRONG. How many times must this be said until you accept and it and stop defending an obviously failed argument.

Summary:

Krauss says because that something comes out of nothing in the current universe, that it possibly could have happened in the beginning of the universe, and be responsible for our universe. BUT SOMETHING DOES NOT COME OUT OF NOTHING IN OUR UNIVERSE, so his entire argument is based on a falsehood. How many times do I really have to repeat this? He is wrong, and I have demonstrated how he is wrong, thoroughly.

Who's to say that God wasn't at the beginning of the universe? We don't know after all. That's what you keep saying. It's an argument from ignorance. It's actually a religious argument.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Why is it odd to reply to posts? I have to join sometime. Never even heard of this forum before last night when I found it searching for something else. You sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
> 
> Anyway, once again, KRAUSS IS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO POST BIG BANG PHYSICS. HE IS REFERENCING POST BIG BANG PHYSICS. THOSE PHYSICS ARE WRONG. How many times must this be said until you accept and it and stop defending an obviously failed argument.
> 
> ...


Reasons it's odd:
1) People have been joining to do nothing but argue their beliefs lately.
2) Who joins a personality site with the sole intention of discussing these matters? Really. 
3) You have no other posts. None. You joined a personality site on human development for the sake of replying to someone on this topic?

Also, virtual particles needing energy and momentum means that anything with either can have generated them via our universe today. 

Your idea of "if this is true, the universe would have dissapeared in seconds" only applies to our universe as it stands today. You haven't demonstrated it thoroughly to me because, as I've said, I am NOT a cosmologist nor have I read into the math, so I would not be able to verify or deny your claims. 

What I am saying is that I need to read it myself and understand the physics behind it before I "agree" with you. If you are so sure of your counter, then go to Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums and post it there. There are PhD physicists there that would clear it up for you. I will watch.

In short, I've learned not to trust charlatans with an agenda. I've taken one quantum mechanics course in my entire life, and have not studied VP. I am not ready to just accept a few naysaying quotes based upon your interpretation without furthering my own understanding. If you will relocate to the forum above with people well-suited for counters with mathematical form, then do so and link it here.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> Reasons it's odd:
> 1) People have been joining to do nothing but argue their beliefs lately.
> 2) Who joins a personality site with the sole intention of discussing these matters? Really.
> 3) You have no other posts. None. You joined a personality site on human development for the sake of replying to someone on this topic?
> ...



I'm not schooled on the history of this forum, and this isn't some trolling game. I guess you will just have to trust me on that. But I respond to topics I am interested in. It is hardly my sole intent to sign up here and knock over weak arguments. I have had this debate on Krauss' lecture for years, I know it like the back of my hand. Of course I am going to comment on it. It's the only topic that I really have an interest in that I have seen posted. I've been here for a whole day. I really can't believe people are talking about it though, I feel like it is 2010.

Do I have to repeat myself again? Really? Another appeal to ignorance? KRAUSS IS BASING IS LECTURE ON THE NOW. He is talking about modern quantum fields creating stuff out of nothing. It is false. His premise is false. I have shown why. This is getting tiresome and you obviously simply want him to be right. That's the only explanation at this point. You are like talking to a creationist. The more facts that are presented, the firmer your resistance.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I'm not schooled on the history of this forum, and this isn't some trolling game. I guess you will just have to trust me on that. But I respond to topics I am interested in. It is hardly my sole intent to sign up here and knock over weak arguments. I have had this debate on Krauss' lecture for years, I know it like the back of my hand. Of course I am going to comment on it. It's the only topic that I really have an interest in that I have seen posted. I've been here for a whole day. I really can't believe people are talking about it though, I feel like it is 2010.
> 
> Do I have to repeat myself again? Really? Another appeal to ignorance? KRAUSS IS BASING IS LECTURE ON THE NOW. He is talking about modern quantum fields creating stuff out of nothing. It is false. His premise is false. I have shown why. This is getting tiresome and you obviously simply want him to be right. That's the only explanation at this point. You are like talking to a creationist. The more facts that are presented, the firmer your resistance.


No, I've just given you the big "whatever." As far as I know, you are not a cosmologist? Are you a physicist? Are you a mathematician? This is an area for which I do not know the facts completely, so I can't really be persuaded either way. My original post said "plenty of things cotradict our intuition" to which I named examples; I didn't specifically get into Krauss' ideas in it anywhere therein until your account magically appeared.

I'm not going to listen to a guy on the internet when it's based on deep-seated physics that I am unfamiliar with. You can call me whatever you want. Post if on a forum with physicists, and I will watch the answer. I do not (nor do you, unless your are a cosmologist) have the power to verify nor invalidate his claims as I am not well-versed enough in the mechanics. 

Whatever = I am not listening. I am neither denying nor confirming your claims.


----------



## FromTheWorldUp (Aug 30, 2010)

I think that this a very narrow argument. I don't see how it's more logical that everything came from nothing than it is that everything has always been. Science can't definitively point to a beginning of anything but what is currently observable. How can it point to nothing? This is a philosophical argument that is trying prop up it's validity with science when science can't even come close to supporting it.


----------

