See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Comments
Z: A spatially extensive construct is clearly not an example of non-being; i.e. it is not a proper nothing. It is astonishing that this has had to be pointed out over and over and over again and still there is resistance to simply acknowledging what should be patent to all. Second, your dig at design theory -- presumably for the thought crime of pointing out that complex fine tuned arrangements of aspects, facets or components that attains a functional operating point is a sign of design per the logic of inference to best explanation, is groundless. KFkairosfocus
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
KF @ 422,
We are not merely looking at a value goes to zero point for a variable here, we are speaking of the origin of the cosmos, and the question on the table cannot be properly resolved by loosely labelling an initial value or by calling a quantum vacuum nothing to one’s convenience, rhetorical and otherwise.
There is no need to fret. Just like 'God's particle' is a popular term for Higgs Boson, 'Nothing' is a popular term of Quantum vacuum. Most research papers still continue to use 'Quantum Vacuum. I don't see it being replaced completely with 'Nothing' ,except in general books on cosmology and public forums lectures, non-specialized seminars and philosophical discussions.Me_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: a quantum vacuum with fluctuations and virtual particles popping up in the energy-time uncertainty window, etc must be spatially extensive.
Of course. No one has said otherwise. Quantum theory implies that the classical vacuum is unstable.
fifthmonarchyman: I can understand a vacuum with particles appearing and disappearing because there is such thing an imperfect partial vacuum.
That's not the question. Quantum fluctuations occur even in a perfect classical vacuum.
Box: Is there an effort to explain “nothing” in physics and/or cosmology? Such an effort is obviously important now that “nothing” has become something.
It's still a half-baked idea, a thought-experiment of a sort, certainly not a complete scientific theory. However, dismissing it out-of-hand is like dismissing zero or the vacuum.
Box: Or do physicists and cosmologists hold that “nothing” doesn’t need an explanation?
The conjecture is that nothingness is inherently unstable, so you won't find nothingness; just like the classical vacuum is unstable, so you won't find a classical vacuum.
kairosfocus: Moreover, were we to start with nothing material, no space, time, energy, matter, states of same etc, and presto something pops up at a zero point on the power of an equation and associated laws, we are seeing a switcheroo, as those eqns and variables invariably refer to somethings, quantities that take definite values.
No one is claiming to have filled the gap (why there is something rather than nothing) with a scientific explanation. It's speculation. This is contrary to ID, which inaccurately claims to have provided a valid scientific explanation.Zachriel
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Box @ 423,
I want to know if there is an effort to explain this “nothing” in physics and/or cosmology.
If you mean has there been public meetings to teach layman what 'Nothing' is, then AFAIK, there hasn't been any and there won't be any- why do you think Physicists have to go around teaching layman what 'Nothing' means ?
If you are interested in the subject, you have to seek knowledge from whatever source is accessible to you.Me_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Me_Think
Me_Think: you need to see various YouTube videos, read article and go to conferences to understand Nothing in context of cosmology.
Whatever "nothing" in the context of cosmology is - whatever something "nothing" is - I want to know if there is an effort to explain this “nothing” in physics and/or cosmology. And I want “nothing” to be explained from “true nothing” - as you term it in #421.Box
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
MT, pardon me but nothing in a serious context means non-being. Yes, we may loosely speak of nothing in my wallet meaning no cash, but that is a contextual loose phrasing. We are not merely looking at a value goes to zero point for a variable here, we are speaking of the origin of the cosmos, and the question on the table cannot be properly resolved by loosely labelling an initial value or by calling a quantum vacuum nothing to one's convenience, rhetorical and otherwise. Nothingness in the proper sense is highly material. KF
PS: I see you have still picked up on a descriptive summary phrase turned into an abbreviation as though it were parallel. It isn't, and why so may easily be seen from Wicken, 1979:
‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. ]
The highlighted alone would justify the phrase, functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information, FSCO/I for short without going on to Orgel. A phrase that I frequently explain on using. The subset, digitally coded functionally specific information, dFSCI, more commonly used by GP in and around UD, is directly self-explanatory by comparison with text or DNA code etc.
For completeness, as you obviously did not follow the link or take its substance on board if you did, I clip Orgel:
. . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity . . . .
[HT, Mung, fr. p. 190 & 196:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure. [--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002] One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes. [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196. ]
PPS: At least, you are not swallowing the "Creationists in cheap tuxedos" talking point.kairosfocus
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 419
Traditional Nothing does not excludes air molecules and microbes - it is not really Nothing ! A Quantum nothing is devoid of all those, so in a sense it is more 'true Nothing' than traditional nothing.Me_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
KF @ 414
MT, apparently you have not caught up on how FSCO/I is at root a summary description of something put on the table in 1973 and 1979 by those Bible thumping Fundy IDists — NOT — Orgel and Wicken. Where the subset, digitally coded functionally specific complex info, dFSCI for short is an obvious descriptive term that refers to something as common as the ASCII coded text in this post and in DNA strings in the cells of your body. And so your attempted analogy or comparison or turnabout manifestly fails . . . though thanks for telling us how significant it will be to again address the FSCO/I
Not every IDist is Bible thumping. I draw comparison between search terms - one decades old, another recently popularized- to highlight the simple fact that just because you don't find a term it doesnt mean it loses it's meaning in the context in which it is proposed and used within a field of study.Me_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
MT, show us a case of non-being (a real nothing) in any of those papers procceding to act and creating a cosmos. You will find, guaranteed, that the variables relate to an antecedent state, typically a quantum vacuum with fluctuations. It therefore remains an apt corrective to highlight that something is not nothing, non-being. To speak of something as though it were nothing, then is a plain error, a categorical one. Moreover, were we to start with nothing material, no space, time, energy, matter, states of same etc, and presto something pops up at a zero point on the power of an equation and associated laws, we are seeing a switcheroo, as those eqns and variables invariably refer to somethings, quantities that take definite values. Indeed, inadvertently, one may then be pointing to the calling of a cosmos into existence ex nihilo, from no prior material-spatial entity (where I note that on the whole one sees a quantum vacuum as a proposed antecedent spatial reality in the models being discussed by especially Krauss). By whom, is then a very appropriate challenge, with a very familiar shadow on the doorstep. KFkairosfocus
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Box @ 414
Is there an effort to explain “nothing” in physics and/or cosmology? Such an effort is obviously important now that “nothing” has become something.
You need to see various YouTube videos, read article and go to conferences to understand Nothing in context of cosmology. Most physicist (unlike Krauss) are apparently introvert so you don't find them seeking publicity.Me_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
Is it not characteristic of atheist activists, stumbling into science, that they void the very word, 'void' of meaning.... and then appropriate its synonyms, 'vacuum' and 'nothing', only to invest them with a new and wholly contrary meaning !
Like the words, 'selection', in 'natural selection', using, 'Nature' to cover what is manifestly a belief in animist spirits.Axel
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman @ 412
Just discussions about Kruss’s book and related discussions with philosophers and theologians about the impossibility of getting something from nothing.
You didn't find caltech link ? astro ucla link ? arxiv ?
You expect physicist to discuss in terms of nothing (which is an accessible term) introduced recently in 2012 and popularized only in 2013 ?, as opposed to dFSCI used for decades ? :-)
Here's a whole lot of technical details discussion on 'Nothing' . See inside, don't complain 'Nothing' is not there in title (Yes there is 1 errant link which has nothing to do with 'Nothing',but it might interest you) :
Nothing links Me_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT
MT, apparently you have not caught up on how FSCO/I is at root a summary description of something put on the table in 1973 and 1979 by those Bible thumping Fundy IDists -- NOT -- Orgel and Wicken. Where the subset, digitally coded functionally specific complex info, dFSCI for short is an obvious descriptive term that refers to something as common as the ASCII coded text in this post and in DNA strings in the cells of your body. And so your attempted analogy or comparison or turnabout manifestly fails . . . though thanks for telling us how significant it will be to again address the FSCO/I issue. Back on this side-track, it remains the case, that something is not nothing, non-being. And underneath, it is still unaddressed, that a locally extremely fine tuned operating point, even through a multiverse speculation, arguably points to design as best explanation. KFkairosfocus
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Me_Think,
Is there an effort to explain "nothing" in physics and/or cosmology? Such an effort is obviously important now that "nothing" has become something.
Or do physicists and cosmologists hold that "nothing" doesn't need an explanation? In that case they would be reverting to the layman's definition of nothing, don't you think?Box
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
KF @ 407
This is a case where — as I took time to lay out — the non-standard use manifestly creates confusion, arguably reflects confusion at root, and should be abandoned. There is utterly no good reason to keep it up
If you could persuade Krauss and the cosmologists to do so, we have no problem, but till it exists in realms of cosmology, it will be used by who ever talks about Quantum Vacuum.Me_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
Me_think says
You need to search ‘Nothing Cosmology’ – see how many links you get.
I say
like I said I already did
I found no specialized conversations among cosmologists about nothing.
Just discussions about Kruss’s book and related discussions with philosophers and theologians about the impossibility of getting something from nothing.
Can you point me to technical discussion where "nothing" is being used by cosmologists to connote a special in-house concept?
Peacefifthmonarchyman
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman @ 410
Google “nothing” and you get nothing about a different special definition that is supposedly used in cosmology.
If you want to be extra thorough and Google “Nothing/cosmology” you get stuff about Kruss’s book and related discussions with philosophers and theologians about the impossibility of getting something from nothing.
Nothing in cosmology is a new term. It takes years for a word to get into dictionary. You need to search 'Nothing Cosmology' - see how many links you get.
See how many external dictionary links you get when you search for decades old FSCO/I or dFSCIMe_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
Me_Think says
Again, a ‘solution’ in chemistry is not equivalent to ‘solution’ of layman
I say
It I look up 'solution' in the dictionary the chemistry definition is the secound definition right there for me to see. No confusion here
Me_think says,
‘Gabriel’s horn’ in maths is not ‘Gabriel horn’ of Bible
I say
If I Google ‘Gabriel’s horn’ the mathematical definition is right there for me to see no confusion here
Me_Think says
‘Nothing’ of cosmology need not be layman’s nothing.
I say
Google "nothing" and you get nothing about a different special definition that is supposedly used in cosmology.
If you want to be extra thorough and Google "Nothing/cosmology" you get stuff about Kruss's book and related discussions with philosophers and theologians about the impossibility of getting something from nothing.
It seems there is no ‘Nothing’ of cosmology there is just the regular nothing that a few people are trying to redefine for some reason.
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
PPS: Feser gives an example that just possibly might help to understand the difference between a declarative, lab coat clad context and the implied meta issues that have come in because, unannounced one has slipped over into philosophical issues:
Recently we had the wood floors in one of the rooms of our house redone. Naturally we had to empty the room before work could start. Suppose that when the wood floor guy showed up to begin, everything had been moved out except for one large bookcase. Annoyed, he asks me why I didn’t empty the room as I had agreed to do. Suppose I haughtily replied:
No beds, no floor rugs, no chairs, no lamps, no bookcases [--> note, plural!]. That’s a pretty good definition of an empty room.
My wood floor guy would no doubt reply: “No it’s not, dumbass. You have, by your own admission, still got one bookcase in there. Therefore it’s not empty. I thought you taught logic?”
Of course, the room might be close enough to “empty” for some purposes. We might even speak loosely of there being “nothing” in it. That’s fine for most everyday contexts, where we needn’t always use terms precisely. But of course, it’s not good enough for every context, as the wood floor example shows. And it certainly isn’t good enough for philosophical and scientific contexts, where we need precision. Krauss, a prominent physicist whose work drips with contempt for the philosophers and theologians he regards as sloppy thinkers, and who urges us to be “careful” in our use of language, can’t see what the wood floor guy can.
The reason, of course, is that the wood floor guy doesn’t have a vested interest in denying the obvious . . .
Of course, I have an underlying reason.
We need to understand the mentality we are up against.
That's going to be important when we take up the mocking dismissal of a humble, practical everyday example of FSCO/I and what its known cause is.
Let's remember the debates over ever so many comments on the subject of what nothing is, in the teeth of every good reason to see why non-being no-thing is the simple, obvious and relevant sense.
In short, amazing though it is to have to say it: something is not the same as nothing.
KFkairosfocus
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT
PS: Perhaps, this further from Feser may help spark some reconsideration:
Consider, then, his very first sentence -- wherein, after urging us to be “careful” in our thinking he immediately flings carefulness violently to the ground and starts pummeling it. Krauss asserts:
[N]othing is a physical concept because it's the absence of something, and something is a physical concept.
The trouble with this, of course, is that “something” is not a physical concept. “Something” is what Scholastic philosophers call a transcendental, a notion that applies to every kind of being whatsoever, whether physical or non-physical -- to tables and chairs, rocks and trees, animals and people, substances and accidents, numbers, universals, and other abstract objects, souls, angels, and God. Of course, Krauss doesn’t believe in some of these things, but that’s not to the point. Whether or not numbers, universals, souls, angels or God actually exist, none of them would be physical if they existed. But each would still be a “something” if it existed. So the concept of “something” is broader than the concept “physical,” and would remain so even if it turned out that the only things that actually exist are physical.
No atheist philosopher would disagree with me about that much, because it’s really just an obvious conceptual point. But since Krauss and his fans have an extremely tenuous grasp of philosophy -- or, indeed, of the obvious -- I suppose it is worth adding that even if it were a matter of controversy whether “something” is a physical concept, Krauss’s “argument” here would simply have begged the question against one side of that controversy, rather than refuted it. For obviously, Krauss’s critics would not agree that “something is a physical concept.” Hence, confidently to assert this as a premise intended to convince someone who doesn’t already agree with him is just to commit a textbook fallacy of circular reasoning.
Dutifully fulfilling his solemn pledge to give his readers “A fallacy in every sentence!”, Krauss goes on to say:
And what we've learned over the last hundred years is that nothing is much more complicated than we would've imagined otherwise.
So, “nothing” is complicated. That implies that it has diverse parts, elements, aspects, or some such. At the very least, a part or aspect A that is distinct from a part or aspect B. But if A is different from B, then there must be something about it by virtue of which it is different. In which case it isn’t true to say that there is nothing. Indeed, Krauss goes on to describe “a kind of nothing” that might seem a “void” or an “infinite empty space,” when in fact “due to the laws of quantum mechanics and relativity, we now know that empty space is a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence at every moment.” Hence “nothing” is really “full of stuff.”
Well, somebody’s sure full of stuff here, but it isn’t “nothing.” Because “stuff,” “space,” laws,” “particles,” and the like are each something. In which case, what could it possibly mean to describe these things as aspects of “nothing”? Have you ever heard such self-contradictory gibberish before? Of course you have, because you’ve read Lawrence Krauss before.
But, plainly, if someone insists on clinging to an absurdity on whatever excuse, we can only note that sad fact and draw the due conclusion for ourselves.kairosfocus
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
MT: This is a case where -- as I took time to lay out -- the non-standard use manifestly creates confusion, arguably reflects confusion at root, and should be abandoned. There is utterly no good reason to keep it up. KFkairosfocus
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 405
Again, nothing is non-being. Anything standing in for non-being is something, not nothing.
Fallacy of equivocation, anyone?
Again, a ‘solution’ in chemistry is not equivalent to ‘solution’ of layman, ‘Gabriel’s horn’ in maths is not ‘Gabriel horn’ of Bible, so a ‘Nothing’ of cosmology need not be layman’s nothing. Every word has to be understood in the context it is being used in.Me_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
F/N 2: David Albert (philosopher with a background in physics) in his critical review of Krauss:
. . . 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. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.
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.
Again, nothing is non-being. Anything standing in for non-being is something, not nothing.
Fallacy of equivocation, anyone?
And, onlookers, if it takes so much to hammer home a patent even trivial point in responding to the Darwinist objectors to design thought we tend to see, what does that tell us about matters where we deal with inference to best explanation regarding traces from an unobserved remote past of origins?
As in, fallacies of selective hyperskepticism, here we come.
KFkairosfocus
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
F/N: Feser nailing the key point, on a Krauss interview with Australian TV. I add a parenthesis or emphasis or two in the Krauss clip within the clip:
about 27 minutes in, where a questioner asks Krauss to explain how the universe could arise from nothing. Krauss answers:
[E]mpty space [--> oopsie!!], which for many people is a good first example of nothing, is actually unstable. Quantum mechanics will allow particles to suddenly pop out of nothing and it doesn't violate any laws of physics. Just the known laws of quantum mechanics and relativity can produce 400 billion galaxies each containing 100 billion stars [--> reification, mere laws can have no causal force in themselves . . . ] and then beyond that it turns out when you apply quantum mechanics to gravity, space itself can arise from nothing, as can time. [--> reification on steroids; contrast, In the beginning was the LOGOS, and the concept that same upholds all things by the word of his power, i.e. words, decrees, laws only take force from who stands behind them . . . as in, K has inadvertently given away the game: In the beginning . . . God said . . . ] It seems impossible but it’s completely possible and what is amazing to me is to be asked what would be the characteristics of a universe that came from nothing by laws of physics. It would be precisely the characteristics of the universe we measure.
This is, of course, a summary of the argument of Krauss’s book. And the problem with it, as everybody on the planet knows except for Krauss himself and the very hackiest of his fellow New Atheist hacks, is that empty space governed by quantum mechanics (or any other laws of physics, or even just the laws of physics by themselves) is not nothing, and not even an “example” of nothing (whatever an “example of nothing” means), but something. And it remains something rather than nothing even if it is a “good first approximation” to nothing (which is what Krauss presumably meant by “good first example”). When people ask how something could arise from nothing, they don’t mean “How could something arise from almost nothing?” They mean “How could something arise from nothing?” That is to say, from the absence of anything whatsoever -- including the absence of space (empty or otherwise), laws of physics, or anything else. And Krauss has absolutely nothing to say about that, despite it’s being, you know, the question he was asked, and the question he pretended to be answering in his book. (Krauss has the brass later in the show to accuse a fellow panelist of a “bait and switch”!) . . .
In short, just remember, nothing, proper is non-being. Anything else standing in to claim the title is a case of not the real McCoy.
KFkairosfocus
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
02:01 AM
2
02
01
AM
PDT
Mung @ 397
Everyone knows that Nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’
So why do people think that Nothin’ plus nothin’ leaves somethin’
Traditional Nothing - Nothing > Billion because traditional nothing has billions of air molecules, millions of microbes etc.Me_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman @ 400
You won’t get Bubba to buy that no matter how hard you try.
You think ? Just tip him and he will swear up and down that nothing of cosmology is the real nothing !
When a person is not interested in something, no matter how hard you try, he will understand nothing :-)Me_Think
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
Mike1962:
When you get down to it,
It’s All One.
Certainly. If you are going to have unity, you must have things to unite. This is why zero is ONE, neither positive nor negative. Zero is the sum of the lefts and the rights, the ups and the downs, the positives and the negatives, the yins and the Yangs.
Yin and Yang are ONE. This is the secret to understanding reality, IMO.Mapou
January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
Me_Think says
Traditional Nothing doesn’t preclude air molecule ! When you say ‘there is nothing in the Honey Nut Cheerios box’, you don’t mean there is no molecules.
I say,
When Bubba says there is nothing in his Honey Nut Cheerios box what he means is there is nothing of interest in the Honey Nut Cheerios box.
It's the same concept as when he says there is nothing in that old fishing hole when everyone knows there is lots of dirty water and garbage in it.
Or when he says there is nothing in his change drawer when everyone knows that there is ten years worth of dust and lint in there.
What Bubba means is that you won't find anything he can use to buy beer in his change drawer.
Now if by the "nothingness" you are explaining you meant nothing of interest then you might get Bubba to follow you.
But in the case of the universe you are claiming that everything interesting was is in the nothingness.
You won't get Bubba to buy that no matter how hard you try.
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
Mapou: Yin-yang duality
How do the yin and yang "know" about "each other?"
It would seem that they would have to be "part of" a single unified ontology, and thus not actually "separate." Differentiated, yes, separate, no.
When you get down to it,
It's All One.mike1962
January 9, 2015
January
01
Jan
9
09
2015
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
FMM:
Nothing does not have anything in it.
On the contrary. Nothing has everything that exists in it. It suffices that all existing things come in opposite pairs, positive and negative. I call it Hyper Symmetry but it's just good old Yin-yang duality. This is analogous to zero being the sum of a huge set of numbers, as long as they all add up to zero. The conservation of zero/nothing is the mother of all conservation principles.Mapou