*Empty space is **the same as nothing.* No way! if it is a 'definite' space, it has borders and characteristics.
*I don’t understand your comment, “It presupposes the laws of physics.” I don’t think empty space presupposes the laws of physics and I don’t think “nothing” presupposes the laws of physics. In my mind neither one presupposes anything.* Right. Especially not the figments called physix. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:09 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > Now that we've sorted out the acronyms, I'd appreciate a response to the > points I made - see below. > > Empty space *is *the same as nothing. >> > > I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions "why > is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe go to the > bother of existing?" "What breathes fire into the equations?" etc are > asking why *anything* exists. That includes empty space. > > I don’t understand your comment, “It presupposes the laws of physics.” I >> don’t think empty space presupposes the laws of physics and I don’t think >> “nothing” presupposes the laws of physics. In my mind neither one >> presupposes anything. >> > > Maybe if the empty space does nothing, forever, that might be true. (At > least we wouldn't exist to ask questions about whether it's true or not.) > But if anything arises from the empty space, then the LOP must govern what > appears. Why should tronnies appear rather than, say, quarks? The answer, > by definition, is the laws of physics. > > Hence, if your description of the origin of the universe is correct, the > question "why is there something rather than nothing?" can be amended to > "why should empty space plus the laws of physics exist?" > > This leaves open the question of why the LOP are the way they are, rather > than anything else they could logically have been. > > Generally, attempts to answer this have taken two forms. One is to show > that the LOP are unique, and logically necessary - there is some underlying > reason they could only be the way we observe them to be. > > The other is to admit that they could have been different, and perhaps > are in other universes - in this view the required explanation is not an > answer to "why do these particular laws of physics?" but "why do all these > different laws of physics exist?" This assumes that some more general > logical necessity needs to be invoked to explain all possible LOP, and then > anthropic selection can be invoked to explain why we find them to be the > way we do in our particular universe. > > PS > TOE=Theory of Everything, IMO=In my opinion (be it ever so humble). I > often type in a hurry, so having generally accepted acronyms available can > come in handy. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
