How did we come from nowhere?

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, Thorham said:

And that's exactly the problem with this. It's a language usage problem, namely deliberately calling something nothing while it's clearly something. It's ass backwards. If it's something just call it something. It's just like the big bang. It wasn't a bang and it wasn't big, so why is it called big bang? I have no problem with these ideas, it's not as if I have any better ones, but come on, something is nothing and a big bang that wasn't a bang and not big? These people need to take some English lessons!

The BB was a termed applied by Fred Hoyle, supposedly as a term of derision, and who pushed the Steady State hypothetical.

I probably agree, its a language usage problem, but the point Krauss makes remains. Perhaps the quantum foam is as fundamental as is possible to achieve and may actually be nothing from which the universe evolved. At that fundamental nature, it is imo easy to imagine it as nothing, the same as we once imagined space as nothing. And as quantum mechanics tells us, nothing is inherently unstable.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

Edited February 20, 2021 by beecee

[Thorham]

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

The BB was a termed applied by Fred Hoyle, supposedly as a term of derision, and who pushed the Steady State hypothetical.

Wow, really? What a shame that name stuck.

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

I probably agree, its a language usage problem, but the point Krauss makes remains. Perhaps the quantum foam is as fundamental as is possible to achieve and may actually be nothing from which the universe evolved. At that fundamental nature, it is imo easy to imagine it as nothing, the same as we once imagined space as nothing.

I understand, but this is still just messing around with language. If it's as fundamental as is possible then it's more like the ultimate something rather than nothing.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Thorham

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, Thorham said:

I understand, but this is still just messing around with language. If it's as fundamental as is possible then it's more like the ultimate something, rather than nothing.

 I see fundamental, more as the ultimate nothing.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/the ultimate in

Definition of the ultimate in

: the greatest or most extreme form or example of (something)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

So as defined, the universe/space/time is the ultimate something, that resulted from nothing.

Edited February 20, 2021 by beecee

[MigL]

Is this a Language Forum or a Science Forum ?

I suggest we discuss the concepts, or any theories,  not the terminology.

[Thorham]

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

So as defined, the universe/space/time is the ultimate something, that resulted from nothing.

And I don't agree. Krauss doesn't get to decide what words mean. He's a physicist, not a linguist.

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

I suggest we discuss the concepts, or any theories,  not the terminology.

And how exactly can we do that when the terminology is confusing or just blatantly nonsensical (on purpose no less)?

[studiot]

On 2/3/2021 at 1:25 PM, Thorham said:

Not this universe from nothing nonsense again. You can't get something from nothing unless you redefine nothing to be something.

 

So do you consider that 'nothing' has no properties whatsoever ?

Or do you not consider a property as 'something' ?

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Thorham said:

And I don't agree. Krauss doesn't get to decide what words mean. He's a physicist, not a linguist.

You are entitled to disagree as much as you like, but you are unable to offer anything in return.  Krauss has simply speculated as to how, going on current knowledge, that our universe arose from nothing...nothing being defined as the quantum foam. You seem to disaprove...so what do you suggest?

1 hour ago, Thorham said:

And how exactly can we do that when the terminology is confusing or just blatantly nonsensical (on purpose no less)?

Some science terminology can be confusing, I have already agreed with that. The thing to do is understand what is actually meant. Vehemently disaproving, which you seem to be doing, without offering a solution in its place, smells of an agenda.

2 hours ago, Thorham said:

And I don't agree. Krauss doesn't get to decide what words mean. He's a physicist, not a linguist.

In fact it could be said that "nothing" or nothingness, as you seem to define it, does not nor ever has existed. Krauss comes to his conclusions, based on empirical evidence and available data. He certainly does not claim it is foolproof or even at scientific theory stage, but then again, we also have yet to formulate a validated QGT. His hypothesis does not put the question of how the universe came to be beyond doubt, but it does indicate it is within the realms of possibility...and that is the crux of the matter.

 

His expertise and credentials are beyond reproach, although he has got a few Philosophers off side with some comments.

 

 

[Thorham]

28 minutes ago, studiot said:

So do you consider that 'nothing' has no properties whatsoever ?

Nothing simply means 'not something'.

15 minutes ago, beecee said:

You seem to disaprove...so what do you suggest?

That we simply call it quantum foam and not nothing. Simple. A universe from quantum foam. What's the problem with that?

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

Some science terminology can be confusing

Of course, but when people start to needlessly redefine a word then it becomes confusing for no good reason.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Thorham said:

And I don't agree. Krauss doesn't get to decide what words mean. He's a physicist, not a linguist.

This is a physics discussion. Krauss can use physics terminology, or terminology applied in a physics context, rather than lay usage.

7 minutes ago, Thorham said:

Of course, but when people start to needlessly redefine a word then it becomes confusing for no good reason.

Perhaps it’s not needless. Reminiscent of the different definitions of ‘vacuum’

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Thorham said:

That we simply call it quantum foam and not nothing. Simple. A universe from quantum foam. What's the problem with that?

Quantum foam, the most fundamental and basic of all concepts...The ultimate nothing would also suffice. Afterall we imagined space as nothing at one time, and the majority probably still do.

5 minutes ago, Thorham said:

Of course, but when people start to needlessly redefine a word then it becomes confusing for no good reason.

Words are redefined all the time...one that immediately comes to mind...GAY. In my young days it meant being happy, now it has an entirely different meaning.

But again, the first thing I do when I come across some ambiguous text, is find out what the author was referring to. The BB while being a term of derision, is understood that way, by those interested enough to research it and understand it is in no way like any conventional explosion.

[Thorham]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is a physics discussion. Krauss can use physics terminology, or terminology applied in a physics context, rather than lay usage

No, he can't, because he just wants to be able to call his pop science book A universe from nothing. That's all there's to it. There's no scientific value at all in redefining the word nothing to mean something. He just blatantly ignores the philosophical meaning of the word nothing and it's utter rubbish.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

Afterall we imagined space as nothing at one time, and the majority probably still do.

And it's not, so you call it something.

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Words are redefined all the time

I don't think words as fundamental as nothing and something should be redefined.

Krauss is literally just word fucking for absolutely no good reason at all, and it causes confusion for no good reason at all. If something is something, just call it something. I don't understand why that's so difficult. Something is something and nothing is not something. Seems so easy.

 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Thorham said:

No, he can't, because he just wants to be able to call his pop science book A universe from nothing. That's all there's to it. There's no scientific value at all in redefining the word nothing to mean something. He just blatantly ignores the philosophical meaning of the word nothing and it's utter rubbish.

And it's not, so you call it something.

I don't think words as fundamental as nothing and something should be redefined.

Krauss is literally just word fucking for absolutely no good reason at all, and it causes confusion for no good reason at all. If something is something, just call it something. I don't understand why that's so difficult. Something is something and nothing is not something. Seems so easy.

 

Calm down friend. Sometimes people are not going to agree with what you decide is the best way of doing things. It's nothing personal

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Thorham said:

No, he can't, because he just wants to be able to call his pop science book A universe from nothing. That's all there's to it. There's no scientific value at all in redefining the word nothing to mean something. He just blatantly ignores the philosophical meaning of the word nothing and it's utter rubbish.

If the quantum foam is as basic and fundamental as one can ever achieve, its rather obvious it could be defined as "nothing" afterall as I said space was thought of as nothing, still is by many. It also appears your use of  "pop science" is obviously an attempt at derision of Krauss....You should realize as I have said, that the ideas and basis for his hypothesis, is based on current data and quantum principles, while at the same time being totally upfront in that the hypothesis is just that. You do understand that? still on his credentials  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Krauss

Krauss received undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics with first-class honours at Carleton University in Ottawa in 1977, and was awarded a Ph.D. in physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1982.

Awards	Andrew Gemant Award (2001) Lilienfeld Prize (2001) Science Writing Award (2002) Oersted Medal (2004) Richard Dawkins Award (2016)
Scientific career
Fields	Theoretical physics Cosmology
Institutions	Arizona State University Australian National University New College of the Humanities Yale University Case Western Reserve University Harvard University
Thesis	Gravitation and Phase Transitions in the Early Universe (1982)
Doctoral advisor	Roscoe Giles[1]

 

2 hours ago, Thorham said:

Krauss is literally just word fucking for absolutely no good reason at all, and it causes confusion for no good reason at all. If something is something, just call it something. I don't understand why that's so difficult. Something is something and nothing is not something. Seems so easy.

Wow! Obviously it is well known that Professor Krauss has greatly offended two groups of people....philosophers, and Creationists. It appears we can add you to that list. It's still not really clear why though? Redefining of a word? Surely not, they are redefined all the time!

Thought I would search how nothing has been and is now defined. Not as clear cut as some would have us believe.......

https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbk5va/what-is-nothing

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

From the last link above, Sean Carroll remarks, "Ultimately, Carroll said, he’s not losing sleep over the question of “What is nothing?” even if it’s a fascinating thing to think about.

“I think the question of ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ is interesting, but the answer probably is, ‘That’s just the way it is,’” he concluded. “

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The highlighted bit by me, aligns to the Krauss hypothesis.

[Thorham]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

If the quantum foam is as basic and fundamental as one can ever achieve, its rather obvious it could be defined as "nothing"

Not as obvious as simply calling it what it is. If nothing and something both mean something, then why have the word nothing? This is one reason why this whole thing is ridiculous.

4 hours ago, beecee said:

It also appears your use of  "pop science" is obviously an attempt at derision of Krauss

I called his book pop science, not his hypothesis.

5 hours ago, beecee said:

Redefining of a word? Surely not, they are redefined all the time!

Absolutely because of that. If nothing gets redefined to something, then why even keep the word at all? Nothing and something are opposites. The whole point is that they are not the same

5 hours ago, beecee said:

Thought I would search how nothing has been and is now defined. Not as clear cut as some would have us believe.......

https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html

https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbk5va/what-is-nothing

It's not as clear cut and dry as it should and indeed could be because people like to needlessly complicate things.

6 hours ago, zapatos said:

Sometimes people are not going to agree with what you decide is the best way of doing things.

Sometimes people also like to needlessly complicate things by performing mental gymnastics in order to make something mean what it really, REALLY doesn't mean, and I'm not going to accept that without a fight, especially not when scientists do it. They should know better.

[Markus Hanke]

8 hours ago, Thorham said:

No, he can't, because he just wants to be able to call his pop science book A universe from nothing.

I haven’t read the book myself, but it seems obvious to me that this is a figure of speech; it would never occur to me to grant this title the status of a scientific claim, most especially not since this isn’t a technical text but a pop-sci presentation. I would assume that the actual content of the book makes this abundantly clear. It’s kind of like seeing an ad for the movie “The China Syndrome”, and then complaining that the storyline has nothing to do with either China nor any syndroms. Pretty silly, if you ask me.

Pop-sci is full of such figures of speech - they talk about “black holes” (though they are neither black nor are they holes), “wormholes” (no worms involved), “vacuum” (though it’s not empty), “Big Bang” (though it was neither big nor noisy), and any number of other such terms. We could replace all these with more accurate technical terms, but then the general public wouldn’t know what it is we are on about any longer.

The other thing of course is that this is a commercial publication, so it needs to sell and make money, otherwise you have a bunch of really unhappy people (not just the author!). As such, marketing is an important consideration, and “A Universe from Nothing” piques people’s interests a lot more than “A Universe From The Hartle-Hawking State, Being A Solution To The Wheeler-deWitt Equation” (the technically correct version, because “something” is just as wrong!) would do. It simply sells better, and that matters if you are in a market economy and need to at the very least recoup the costs of printing and distribution, and hopefully have some left over afterwards. I don’t consider this a malicious intent, or attempt at intentional deception in any way. It’s simply an attempt to capture the target audience’s attention.

My question to you would be why this bothers you so much? This seems perfectly harmless to me, especially once you actually read the contents of the book, which, I assume, make it clear what it is the author intents to present.

[Thorham]

23 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

it seems obvious to me that this is a figure of speech

The whole problem is that it's not.

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Thorham said:

It's not as clear cut and dry as it should and indeed could be because people like to needlessly complicate things.

Sometimes people also like to needlessly complicate things by performing mental gymnastics in order to make something mean what it really, REALLY doesn't mean, and I'm not going to accept that without a fight, especially not when scientists do it. They should know better.

I'm still waiting for your alternative explanation, and/or a refutation of the data that a universe from nothing [nothing being inherently unstable] and defined as the quantum foam, is not in the realms of possibility.

 

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

My question to you would be why this bothers you so much? This seems perfectly harmless to me, especially once you actually read the contents of the book, which, I assume, make it clear what it is the author intents to present.

The author makes it abundantly clear that this is still speculation, while using data to show it is in the realms of possibility. In fact many times. 

This is only a short explanation...Like I said, he certainly offended creationists and some philosophers, and Thorum..2m 30 mark answers your question.

 

 

I like it and see it as a possibility.

1 hour ago, Thorham said:

Sometimes people also like to needlessly complicate things by performing mental gymnastics in order to make something mean what it really, REALLY doesn't mean, and I'm not going to accept that without a fight, especially not when scientists do it. They should know better.

Do what? What fight? I think Marcus has explained it very well. You don't accept it? That's your perogative...I see it as a pretty good explanation, without the mental gymnastics you have conjured up.

Edited February 21, 2021 by beecee

[Thorham]

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm still waiting for your alternative explanation, and/or a refutation of the data that a universe from nothing [nothing being inherently unstable] and defined as the quantum foam, is not in the realms of possibility.

I have no problem with quantum foam, existing data, etc. I have a problem with redefining nothing to mean something. Now you have two words for 'something', and no word for 'nothing', and that makes no sense. Nothing and something are two specific concepts, and if the concept of nothing doesn't apply, use something else. If something looks like nothing, but it isn't, just stop calling it nothing instead of performing mental gymnastics to make nothing mean something.

If it was as simple as nothing being nothing in a context, such as 'There is nothing in that box over there.', then sure, there's no problem, even if I don't like it. It would just be casual speech, but I don't think that's what's happening here.

The notion that there has to be a scientific definition of nothing that's different from the philosophical absolute nothingness is flawed. In science, if it's not nothing don't call it nothing. It's literally that straightforward.

4 minutes ago, beecee said:

Thorum

That's Thorham, thanks 👍

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, Thorham said:

I have no problem with quantum foam, existing data, etc. I have a problem with redefining nothing to mean something.

That's nice...And being such a basic fundamental, and eternal concept, we should have no problem inferring it as nothing. And a fundamental nothing, due to its inherent instability, from which space/time/universe may have evolved. Certainly speculation, but scientifically based speculation rather then any unscientific myth explanation.

I see it as having promise and possibly one day when we are closer to a QGT, a proper evidenced based scientific theory.

15 minutes ago, Thorham said:

That's Thorham, thanks 👍

My apologies for that slip up Thorham

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/11/27/ask-ethan-how-did-the-entire-universe-come-from-nothing/?sh=7d1370242c59

 

extract:

To a large fraction of people, a Universe where space-and-time still exist, along with the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and some non-zero field energy inherent to the fabric of space itself, is very much divorced from the idea of nothingness. We can imagine, after all, a location outside of space; a moment beyond the confines of time; a set of conditions that have no physical reality to constrain them. And those imaginings — if we define these physical realities as things we need to eliminate to obtain true nothingness — are certainly valid, at least philosophically.

But that’s the difference between philosophical nothingness and a more physical definition of nothingness. As I wrote back in 2018, there are four scientific definitions of nothing, and they’re all valid, depending on your context:

 

1. A time when your "thing" of interest didn't exist,
2. Empty, physical space,
3. Empty spacetime in the lowest-energy state possible, and
4. Whatever you're left with when you take away the entire Universe and the laws governing it.

 

We can definitely say we obtained “a Universe from nothing” if we use the first two definitions; we cannot if we use the third; and quite unfortunately, we don’t know enough to say what happens if we use the fourth. Without a physical theory to describe what happens outside of the Universe and beyond the realm physical laws, the concept of true nothingness is physically ill-defined.

In the context of physics, it’s impossible to make sense of an idea of absolute nothingness. What does it mean to be outside of space and time, and how can space and time sensibly, predictably emerge from a state of non-existence? How can spacetime emerge at a particular location or time, when there’s no definition of location or time without it? Where do the rules governing quanta — the fields and particles both — arise from?

This line of thought even assumes that space, time, and the laws of physics themselves weren’t eternal, when in fact they may be. Any theorems or proofs to the contrary rely on assumptions whose validity is not soundly established under the conditions which we’d seek to apply them. If you accept a physical definition of “nothing,” then yes, the Universe as we know it very much appears to have arisen from nothing. But if you leave physical constraints behind, then all certainly about our ultimate cosmic origins disappears.

Unfortunately for us all, inflation, by its very nature, erases any information that might be imprinted from a pre-existing state on our observable Universe. Despite the limitless nature of our imaginations, we can only draw conclusions about matters for which tests involving our physical reality can be constructed. No matter how logically sound any other consideration may be, including a notion of absolute nothingness, it’s merely a construct of our minds.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

As I said earlier, the concept of nothing is not as easily defined or understood as some seem to think.

[studiot]

11 hours ago, Thorham said:

Nothing simply means 'not something'.

I would be 'something' if you answered the two specific questions I asked you rather than sidestep the issues.

🙂

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Thorham said:

No, he can't, because he just wants to be able to call his pop science book A universe from nothing. That's all there's to it. There's no scientific value at all in redefining the word nothing to mean something. He just blatantly ignores the philosophical meaning of the word nothing and it's utter rubbish.

You don’t get to tell physicists how to do physics. 

People like to use “accelerate” to mean “speed up” but that’s not what it means in physics. And it doesn’t matter what linguists (or you) decide.

[Thorham]

Okay, it appears to be a little different from what I thought. After watching the linked video above it seems that Krauss calls a lack of space, time, matter, energy and laws of physics nothing. He doesn't appear to be redefining anything (a lack of those mentioned things seems to be physically nothing indeed). Problem solved.

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

You don’t get to tell physicists how to do physics.

I'm not. I'm complaining about redefining nothing to mean something, which is actually not what's happening here. My problem was that I thought Krauss was messing around with the meaning of nothing so he could use a click bait title for his book, which I don't like because it causes unnecessary confusion. Turns out that he didn't do that.

38 minutes ago, swansont said:

And it doesn’t matter what linguists (or you) decide.

Yeah, it does matter sometimes. Not a single humanbeing is an absolute authority on what the meaning of words should be, so this kind of thing is certainly something that can and should be debated. Especially in this case.

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, Thorham said:

Not a single humanbeing is an absolute authority on what the meaning of words should be

Not even the person who first coined it?

For instance, you're a "Thorhamanitist" I know what it means, do you?

[Thorham]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not even the person who first coined it?

Point taken.

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

For instance, you're a "Thorhamanitist" I know what it means, do you?

I'm not exactly sure.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Thorham said:

I'm not exactly sure.

I could explain it to you, but I'm not sure where our relative understanding, coalesces...