(February 28, 2017 at 4:28 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:(February 28, 2017 at 3:28 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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.
Sorry, you are buying into a load of crap. 'Nothing' simply means not anything. It will never mean something else--for the simple fact that we need a word that describes not anything.
Krauss's theory is that the universe originated in a quantum vacuum, which is empty space filled with vacuum energy. It is a physical reality described by physical laws and having a physical structure. This is something. To redefine this as 'nothing' is a failed attempt to avoid the question of "where did the vacuum field come from" and the infinite regress that results in a logical absurdity. This is not complicated and Krauss has been called on it by other scientists.
So, it seems we are back to pondering why there is anything rather than nothing.
