On 25 January 2012 19:46, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum. One > may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny even > potential would be to deny that anything can exist. >
But surely that denial is precisely the point of the "philosopher's nothing"? I'm not sure why you would say that pointing to a "negative potential" for anything to exist is incoherent (illogical, inconsistent, or whatever). Of course it's a dead-end, explanatorily useless, a mystery if you will. Given that there is something, some aspect of that something will always have to be accepted as given. That's the nature of explanation; the philosopher's nothing is what you get if you push explanation past its breaking point. David > On 1/25/2012 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 25 Jan 2012, at 18:04, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am 99% in agreement with Craig here. The 1% difference is a quibble >>> over the math. We have to be careful that we don't reproduce the same slide >>> into sophistry that has happened in physics. >> >> >> I think I agree. I comment Craig below. >> >> >>> >>> Onward! >>> >>> Stephen >>> >>> On 1/25/2012 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jan 25, 2:05 am, meekerdb<[email protected]> 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. > > > > That's the philsopher's idea of 'nothing', but it's not clear that it's even > coherent. Our concepts of 'nothing' obviously arise from the idea of > eliminating 'something' until no 'something' remains. It is hardly fair to > criticize physicists for using a physical, operational concept of nothing. > Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum. One > may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny even > potential would be to deny that anything can exist. > > Brent > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
