meekerdb wrote:
On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
John,
Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a
confusion. I can only repeat what I said before:
'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of "a
universe from nothing" is absurd.' Either you have pre-existing laws
and substrate -- which is not 'nothing' -- or the universe just "pops"
spontaneously, and laws, etc, are just descriptions of observed
regularities in whatever has "popped". You don't have many other options.
The other popular option (in both religion and physics) is that the
universe is eternal and no "popping" is needed. Some are eternal and
infinite and others are eternal and cyclic.
Brent
"Popping" was perhaps a bad choice of term. It conveys the idea of a
temporal progression from 'nothing' to the popped universe. I had in
mind, rather, block universe ideas in which the complete space-time
continuum is timelessly existent. There is no origin since time is a
concept only within the block. The block could be either of infinite
temporal duration (if such can be defined within the block universe), or
cyclical.
Bruce
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
