(August 26, 2016 at 1:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -a variation on the theme of whether or not the question is properly formed. Perhaps there's something, rather than nothing, because nothing is not a sensible concept in reference to the cosmos. It sounds deep and profound, but in that case the question is actually a trivial absurdism.
It's a convenient (but also rational) answer to a question whose more pedantic answer is simply "We don't know".
I especially agree with the part I've emphasised above. I think that what Krauss means by nothing, and what theologians mean by nothing aren't the same.
I think that by nothing, theologians mean nothing whatever, no matter, no energy, no anything, zero, zippo, zilch, sweet Fanny Adams. But we can only try to imagine what that is, because there is something.
When we try to imagine this supposed nothing: "where is it?"; "when was it?"; "for how long was it?" etc. All those questions are only ask-able from the here and now with its somethingness.
"In what would the nothing be contained?"; ( a trivial absurdism ) - it is contained in our minds, (which are something ). I can't convince myself that true nothingness is even possible. But as you say: "We don't know".
There are no atheists in terrorist training camps.
