On 20 October 2014 05:59, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
No I don't have time, although I have read other books on the subject (and other books by Krauss). I was going by your description. > > > 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? > > The point of the mathematical universe hypothesis is that it has a non-physical basis and hence a reasonable claim to start from nothing. I'm not, of course, claiming it's true, just saying that it addresses the question. If there is more to Krause's ideas than what might be called the usual physical approach, please tell me what it is. The only thing I've come across so far that it seems reasonable to count as nothing are abstract relationships between abstract entities. I am genuinely extremely interested to know what else might fit this description, and quite prepared to alter my worldview accordingly (as I did when I first encountered the MUH, of course, also when I encountered Russell's theory of nothing, and as I've attempted to do in my attempts to understand comp). PS If you've been on this forum very long you will already know my views on the God hypothesis. -- 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.
