RE: What would you call my new beliefs?
February 28, 2017 at 4:28 pm
(This post was last modified: February 28, 2017 at 4:33 pm by Simon Moon.)
(February 28, 2017 at 3:28 pm)SteveII Wrote:(February 20, 2017 at 7:41 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: 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?
As I already stated, the definition that physicists use for 'nothing' is not the same as used colloquially.
You do understand that many words have several different meanings depending on whether they are used by scientists or the general public, right? There's actually a word for this, it is "polysemy".
Examples:
Abstract, chaotic, confidence, constraint, flux, perturb, power, theory, salt, critical point...should I go on?
Sorry you fail to understand this, but it is the way things are.
Quote:Did the universe come from nothing or not?
Not if you are defining 'nothing' as, non existence. That is not how Krauss and other physicists define it.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
