On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> It is not at all camouflaged; Lawrence Krause just wrote a book called "A
> Universe From
> Nothing". That the universe came from nothing is suggested by calculations
> of the total
> energy of the universe. Theories of the origin of the universe have been
> developed by
> Alexander Vilenkin, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. Of course the other
> view is that
> there cannot have been Nothing and Something is the default.
> "The most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by
> nothing, and for nothing."
> --- Quentin Smith
I think that we are all familiar with the universe from nothing
theories, but the problem is with how nothing is defined. The
possibility of creating a universe, or creating anything is not
'nothing', so that any theory of nothingness already fails if the
definition of nothing relies on concepts of symmetry and negation,
dynamic flux over time, and the potential for physical forces, not to
mention living organisms and awareness. An honestly recognized
'nothing' must be in all ways sterile and lacking the potential for
existence of any sort, otherwise it's not nothing.
My view is that the default is neither nothing or something but rather
Everything. If you have an eternal everything then the universe of
somethings and sometimes can be easily explained by there being
temporary bundling of everything into isolated wholes, collections of
wholes, collections of collections, etc, each with their own share of
small share of eternity.
This is what I am trying to say with Bruno about numbers starting from
1 instead of 0. From 1 we can subtract 1 and get 0, but from 0, no
logical concept of 1 need follow. 0 is just 0. 0 minus 0 is still 0.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at