Thorham Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 19 minutes ago, dimreepr said: I could explain it to you, but I'm not sure where our relative understanding, coalesces... Humor me.
dimreepr Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Thorham said: Humor me. Doh, It was intended as a joke... 😣
Thorham Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 5 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Doh, It was intended as a joke... 😣 Well, I did say I wasn't sure 🙂
zapatos Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 2 hours ago, Thorham said: Not a single humanbeing is an absolute authority on what the meaning of words should be Damn. Now I have to clean up the coffee that just shot out my nose. You do realize you've been presenting yourself as just such an authority, don't you?
Thorham Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 10 minutes ago, zapatos said: You do realize you've been presenting yourself as just such an authority, don't you? That's exactly what I wasn't doing. I was complaining about someone else whom I thought was doing that (which he wasn't) and how I thought that was a stupid idea. You see, if everyone just redefines words to mean whatever they want then we might as well call everything smurf.
StringJunky Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Thorham said: That's exactly what I wasn't doing. I was complaining about someone else whom I thought was doing that (which he wasn't) and how I thought that was a stupid idea. You see, if everyone just redefines words to mean whatever they want then we might as well call everything smurf. When in Rome...
zapatos Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 26 minutes ago, Thorham said: That's exactly what I wasn't doing. Except for these you mean... "No, he can't..." "it's not..." "this whole thing is ridiculous." "I'm not going to accept that" "They should know better." "The whole problem is that it's not." None of these statements show a willingness to see the other person's perspective. You are simply making pronouncements on what is right and what is wrong. You are coming across as the absolute authority. I never once heard Krauss say that his definition of "nothing" was the only one possible and must be accepted by everyone. You on the other hand did just that.
Thorham Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 27 minutes ago, zapatos said: Except for these you mean... Just my opinion. As we all know, it's peoples good right to disagree. 27 minutes ago, zapatos said: None of these statements show a willingness to see the other person's perspective. I'm indeed quite unwilling if I completely, totally and utterly disagree with something. If that leads to mutual disagreement, well, that's fine with me, because... 29 minutes ago, zapatos said: You are coming across as the absolute authority. ... I'm absolutely not an authority. I just got to worked up about this stuff, that's all.
zapatos Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 18 minutes ago, Thorham said: ... I'm absolutely not an authority. I know. I never said you were an authority. I said you are presenting yourself as one. You can try to spin it any way you like but how you come across is here for all to see.
MigL Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 (edited) I would suggest moving this to the Linguistics forum, but we don't have one ... Notjhng is generally understood to mean zero, or no, 'things'. We then have to take a look at what is commonly defined as 'things'. A 'thing', in common english, usually means something that can be interacted with by one of our senses ( touch, sight, smell, hear or taste ). Quantum foam, on the other hand, is a hand-wavy description ( people are still working on quantifying it, see spin foam ) of the 'fluctuations' of spacetime at extremely small distances due to the HUP. The vacuum fluctuations ( an inherent property of Quantum theory and the 'source' of vacuum energy ) would localize ( relatively ) large amounts of energy in extremely small volumes and extremel short times creating ( micro worm ) holes and 'bubbles' of spacetime, such that spacetime would not be smooth at these scales, but look 'foamy'. IOW, there is no 'foam', and it is not a thing; just a possible description of spacetime ( the co-ordinate system, if you will ) at its most fundamental level. And you CANNOT get any more fundamental in this universe, so your version of nothing cannot exist. Quantum foam - Wikipedia We have a thread in Astronomy and Cosmology that also deals with this ... Why is there something rather than nothing? - Astronomy and Cosmology - Science Forums You might wanna have a read. Edited February 21, 2021 by MigL 1
beecee Posted February 21, 2021 Posted February 21, 2021 7 hours ago, Thorham said: 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. He is essentially saying what I have being saying...nothing, as per your definition is impossible and has not nor ever did exist....or as aptly described by the following... 35 minutes ago, MigL said: Quantum foam, on the other hand, is a hand-wavy description ( people are still working on quantifying it, see spin foam ) of the 'fluctuations' of spacetime at extremely small distances due to the HUP. The vacuum fluctuations ( an inherent property of Quantum theory and the 'source' of vacuum energy ) would localize ( relatively ) large amounts of energy in extremely small volumes and extremel short times creating ( micro worm ) holes and 'bubbles' of spacetime, such that spacetime would not be smooth at these scales, but look 'foamy'. IOW, there is no 'foam', and it is not a thing; just a possible description of spacetime ( the co-ordinate system, if you will ) at its most fundamental level. And you CANNOT get any more fundamental in this universe, so your version of nothing cannot exist. Thorham...I'm no scientist, nor philosopher. In fact like Krauss, I have drawn the ire of philosophers at times, when quoting such lines as "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know" In actual fact I don't like being labeled anything, other then hopefully, a lover of reason and the scientific methodology, as corny as that may sound. In reality I'm an old retired maintenance Fitter/Machinist/Welder that loves to learn what I can about physics and cosmology, and sometimes regretting that I left it too late in life to do anything about, other then badgering those more knowledgable then myself on forums such as this. I see it as awesome that cosmologists can take us back to t+10-43 seconds with some confidence, and relay with logic how things progressed from there. I'm equally in awe, how we can also speculate with some degree of knowledge and data, how scientists like Krauss for example, can even delve into the abyss of whatever nothing existed before space and time, as we know them. I find it far more logical and reasonable to accept such speculation as the quantum foam, then other unscientific solutions, that first arose with ancient man. I admire the logic and science of scientists such as Krauss and Dawkins, but my most respected scientist, and probably the one that got me all fired up and into this stuff is the late Carl Sagan. I have his "Pale Blue Dot" narrative hanging up in my man cave. Anyway nice debating with you and look forward to more when such time may arise. 1
Thorham Posted February 22, 2021 Posted February 22, 2021 13 hours ago, beecee said: Anyway nice debating with you and look forward to more when such time may arise. Thanks, and the same to you 🙂 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now