(February 20, 2017 at 7:41 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:Quote:Its not just emotionally unsatisfying, its also logically unsatisfying. I am reading Kraus's book right now to try and understand the concept of our universe coming from nothing, but it still just doesn't make sense to me that nothing could ever produce anything.
If reality and your requirement to be 'emotionally satisfied' don't line up, guess which one wins?
As far as being 'logically satisfying' goes, if Krauss's theories are supported by evidence (which they are), they are 'logically satisfying' be definition. That is not to say he is right, only that his theories are logically satisfying. Maybe the term you are looking for instead of 'logic', is 'common sense'. I see many people confusing these terms.
By the way, the definition that physicists use for the word 'nothing' is not the same as used by the general public. The physicists' definition does not mean absolute nothingness, as in non-being. I believe that Krauss should not have used the word 'nothing' in the title of the book for this exact reason.
"There are physicists like Lawrence Krauss that argue the "universe from nothing", really meaning "the universe from a potentiality". Which comes down to if you add all the mass and energy in the universe, all the gravitational curvature, everything… it looks like it all sums up to zero. So it is possible that the universe really did come from nothing. And if that's the case, then "nothing" is everything we see around us, and "everything" is nothing."
So, in your first paragraph tell us that Krauss's theory about the universe coming from nothing is supported by evidence, then in the second paragraph you tell us that 'nothing' us really something. This isn't just emotionally unsatisfying, this is logically unsatisfying. Did the universe come from nothing or not?
