Something from Nothing

[Banned]

Are space and time products of something physical...?

As we know and define it, absolutely and demonstrably, yes.  Amusingly, spacetime is "more physical" than the concept of space itself.  The concept of space, of spatial relationships and reference points and tensors, could be applied to a philosophic vacuum of nothingness.  As in, if we had a cube of p-vacuum exactly 3m by 3m, there would be a point in the middle of that space, despite the space being filled with a conceptual nothing.

Spacetime, however, is both made out of and chock full of shit.

Why do you think that the option of "nothing" is prefered by spokespeople like Lawrence and Hawking?

Particularly since the idea of "something from nothing," isn't philosophically or physically agreeable.

Does our lack of knowledge of what may have been prior to the BB, make it safer and more logical to accept an absudity?

---

Did we find out what God made our (mostly lethal) play area out of yet? I've generally heard it was from nothing. I've never heard an atheist claim anything came from nothing. But also there's no way to know that it can't, either.

That last sentence leaves room for a surprise...I don't mind that, even though I haven't tried to accept it.

The last few decades of science has both postulated and found that the things we experience in the universe, are almost insigificant compared to other forces - mostly unknown in the universe.

One notion that has been on the table with many scientists for a long while, is
that matter is made up of components which are physical, but not measurable by matter, except by their effects on matter. It means that a correct theory could unlock all of it.

Maybe the poineers were on to something when they discussed the ether theory.
Their definition of ether may have been simply inadequate.

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd have to ask them...but, broadly...Krauss and Hawking have wildly divergent opinions on the matter..part of it due to each man's own opinion.. and another likely part of the demographics of their readership.  Both men address concepts in the popular mind, concepts important or interesting to their readers.  Hawking considers the subject line incoherent, and could be described as a non-cognitivist in this regard.  Krauss considers the traditional concepts close enough for govt. work..and could be considered a compatibilist. 

Neither man assigns credence to the baggage of nothing, and neither man is discussing what spacetime arose from.  That would be the BB.  Their comments surround the conditions prior to the bb...if it's a coherent notion...not after it.  In neither mans explanation is spacetime anything other than a physical product of a physical event.

[Banned]

What Hawking was saying that the term "before" has no meaning in the context of the universe as he describes it.
It did not come from anything because there was no anywhere for it to come from and no time for it to come from.

Seems strange to me, but he is the world renowned physicist and I'm not.

Yes, I get that. It is subsequent to the idea of space and time, being created in the BB, and it follows that there isn't a "when" that all began, and that it's position would also have been irrelevant.

While the idea of "nothing" accommodates this scenario, so would "something" cater for it. Something which is able to multiply and or diminish the values of space and time from the infinite to nothing.

For example, something which is able to operate many times faster than the speed of light, would change the values of our ordinary space time.

---

You'd have to ask them...but, broadly...Krauss and Hawking have wildly divergent opinions on the matter..part of it due to each man's own opinion.. and another likely part of the demographics of their readership.  Both men address concepts in the popular mind, concepts important or interesting to their readers.  Hawking considers the subject line incoherent, and could be described as a non-cognitivist in this regard.  Krauss considers the traditional concepts close enough for govt. work..and could be considered a compatibilist. 

Neither man assigns credence to the baggage of nothing, and neither man is discussing what spacetime arose from.  That would be the BB.  Their comments surround the conditions prior to the bb...if it's a coherent notion...not after it.  In neither mans explanation is spacetime anything other than a physical product of a physical event.

Then they are both following the constraints of scientific thinking, which is basically this - seeing is believing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Technically, they're both engaged in wild speculation, of a sort, lol. Again, either mans comments on the subject have much to do with the nature of their authorship and readership. It doesn;t really matter whether or not "nothing" or "something from nothing" is scientifically valid or even useful - or philosophically or physically agreeable - people wonder about it, and so they write about it.

Why do you think that there's some constraint in science "seeing is believing"? A significant portion of it deals exclusively with things beyond the human ability to see.

[Banned]

Hawking argues that there was no before the big bang that the universe did not come for anything because there was no before the universe .

Most people probably think that's a reasonable conclusion, so far as exploring matter is concerned. I do.

There are a few things we could speculate from that, like - there is no such thing as a beginning, except for the physical illusion of time being linear.

We could reasonably speculate that the BB was an action with an equal reaction - one to create space time, while the other removes space time.
Which may account for black holes etc.
And it's interesting that blackholes aren't supposed to have a location, except the effects they have on the known material universe.

---

Technically, they're both engaged in wild speculation, of a sort, lol. Again, either mans comments on the subject have much to do with the nature of their authorship and readership. It doesn;t really matter whether or not "nothing" or "something from nothing" is scientifically valid or even useful - or philosophically or physically agreeable - people wonder about it, and so they write about it.

Why do you think that there's some constraint in science "seeing is believing"? A significant portion of it deals exclusively with things beyond the human ability to see.

When I say "seeing" I mean using all that we can percieve - including imaginative theories. People only trust what they can accept, by experience or attitude.
In other words, the human experience is all that can be counted on.

But that experience isn't one of being at the pinnacle of knowledge, but in a sea of it.

[Aegon]

I could if you really wanted me to. You have to say please though.

I would certainly like to witness a zen argument and responses.

I think I already made one to be honest. At least... in essence. I know very little about the cosmology; I'm much more interested in Taoist philosophy, broadly, and probably about 0.5% of Zen Buddhism. I definitely DO NOT consider myself a Taoist, for two reasons: I don't know enough to really be one and there are parts of Taoism that are way too mystical for my liking. I enjoy the bits that essentially offer a new way of looking at and studying the physical world as well as a way of living which can reduce anxiety and increase overall levels of enjoyment. This drivel has been wildly successful in doing both those things for me.

There's a few main creation myths in Taoist literature and they all imply that something was always here (the Dao.) I have read several texts that I would argue are essential to understanding Taoism, but I only retain the parts I like. Creation myths don't particularly interest me except for the place they have in the philosophy's general logic. BUT the initial comment about the relatively of something to nothing. Recognizing the utility of nothingness and its importance relative to something is key in Taoist philosophy. It's the core ideal behind the concept of wu wei, which translates to a few things but I like "effortless effort." That is about action (or lack thereof) though. It can apply to the creation of the universe because: if the Dao flows completely naturally and effortlessly, and the Dao had always existed, formless, prior to the universe, then the progression of the universe's creation was entirely natural and did not require anybody or anything to take any sort of action (i.e., no God or supreme being necessary.) I feel like I'm free to interpret Laotzu in so many ways, I could probably say that there very well may have been NOTHING before the universe, but nothingness could still be described as the Dao.

[The Grand Nudger]

When I say "seeing" I mean using all that we can percieve - including imaginative theories. People only trust what they can accept, by experience or attitude.
In other words, the human experience is all that can be counted on.

How could people trust anything imperceptible and beyond imagination, what are the mechanics for that, lol?   

In any case, science (yet again) deals with things explicitly beyond the human ability to experience.  If we counted on human experience to exclusion, we wouldn't know most of what we know.

But that experience isn't one of being at the pinnacle of knowledge, but in a sea of it.

Sounds like a great place to be if you want to collect some knowledge.