On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 11:35 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > The point that Krauss fails to address is precisely that - why there is > something rather than nothing. >
Have you actually read the book? It sure doesn't sound like you did. > Going from "almost nothing" (the quantum vacuum, say) to something is, > simply, starting from something. > And Krauss spend several chapters on this exact point. > That's fine from the viewpoint of the continuing saga of physics, which > doesn't attempt to address fundamental questions (like why is there > something rather than nothing) > Although he hasn't even claimed to have a proof and admits he could be wrong Krauss gives a rough outline of how you might be able to go from nothing to something. And Krauss goes into great detail about what we mean by "nothing". Until very very recently empty space would have been considered nothing, certainly the authors of the Bible or the Quran would have thought so, but now we know that the vacuum is a seething hive of activity at the Planck level. But the starting point for Krauss isn't the vacuum, he doesn't even assume the existence of space or time. But perhaps even that sort of nothing isn't nothing enough for you because although it doesn't consist of energy or matter or space or time it does have the potential to become something. But what do you expect him to do, explain how a nothing that can NOT evolve into something evolves into something? And how is science's competitor doing in answering all hese big questions? Religion can't explain diddly squat. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
