On 13 February 2015 at 18:20, meekerdb <[email protected]> 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. >
This is true, of course, and changes the question (slightly) - "Why does the eternal universe, and its laws of physics, exist?" -- 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.
