Can some thing really come from no thing?

[Itoero]

On ‎15‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 11:14 AM, Eise said:

<Antfuckermode>Wrong. Disciplines that concern themselves with what physicists say about nature could be linguists and sociologists. Physicists try to describe how nature behaves. Therefore they use models, which of course are not how nature is. (or better: of which we cannot know if they describe nature as it really is).</Antfuckermode>

That's a very simplistic view. It's a quote from Niels Bohr, this is the complete quote: "There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature  is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature... "

[Eise]

22 hours ago, Itoero said:

Physics concerns what we can say about nature...

The 'can' is missing in your previous citation. Makes a huge difference.

I would even extend Bohr's sentence a little, just to make it clearer:

Physics concerns what we, methodologically justified, can say about nature.

 

 

[Itoero]

On ‎17‎-‎9‎-‎2017 at 3:28 PM, Eise said:

The 'can' is missing in your previous citation. Makes a huge difference.

I would even extend Bohr's sentence a little, just to make it clearer:

Physics concerns what we, methodologically justified, can say about nature.

 

 

You do understand that words can have different meanings dependent on the context? He points to the 'fact' that science deals with what we call reality,  not ultimate reality. Ultimate reality I call reality which is present regardless whether it's observed or not. Our senses/understanding/measuring devices decide what we can observe, which forms our reality. For a pantheist, Ultimate reality is divinity.

For example: When we observe nothing then we observe nothing in our (idea of) reality but the observation is submissive to our senses/understanding/measuring devices.

So can some thing come from no thing? It depends how you define nothing and something.

 

Follow 2

 

 

 

[Eise]

On 20/09/2017 at 4:42 PM, Itoero said:

You do understand that words can have different meanings dependent on the context?

Yes.

On 20/09/2017 at 4:42 PM, Itoero said:

He points to the 'fact' that science deals with what we call reality,  not ultimate reality.

Clear. I did not say "Bohr is wrong", I said he could have said it a tiny bit clearer. I have no point with Bohr, but what you said originally differed from Bohr's quotation. I understood what you wanted to say, but it was not so precise.

[swansont]

On 9/20/2017 at 10:42 AM, Itoero said:

You do understand that words can have different meanings dependent on the context? He points to the 'fact' that science deals with what we call reality,  not ultimate reality. Ultimate reality I call reality which is present regardless whether it's observed or not. Our senses/understanding/measuring devices decide what we can observe, which forms our reality. For a pantheist, Ultimate reality is divinity.

Bohr says "nature", not "reality", is what it tries to describe.

"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is." should make it clear that he is saying physics is not trying to describe reality.