Argument Against an Infinite Past

[Anomalocaris]

My main issue is more with the way physicists are naming some things. Max mentions that Krauss talks about 'nothingness' having mass. But what Krauss has said (in other instances) is that empty space has mass, so clearly in that case he (and some other physicists) are calling empty space 'nothing' or 'nothingness'. When the terms are used properly, it's all well and good. However, some physicists (Krauss is the notable one) have made the mistake of pushing it too far. For example, he once said before (I'm paraphrasing) that science has shown that something can come from nothing in reference to the production of virtual particles. However, they come from (I believe) vacuum energy, which is clearly something (i.e it exists), so Krauss' usage is misleading at times. He (probably accidentally, as far as I know) is conflating the usage of the term nothing in physics with the usual meaning of the word, which is "no thing".

That's why it doesn't make sense to say that 'nothingness has mass', when he's referring to empty space, or virtual particles being creatio ex nihilo.

Nothing big, just a slight annoyance with that misleading usage.

Physicists have agile minds that are able to manipulate multiple layers of symbolic meanings. This makes following their expressions an edifying mental exercise beyond the mere face values of their meanings, and offer some insight into how their minds work and make the connections between the different layers.

This is analogous to the way following the writtings of masters of an language is an edifying mental exercise that couldn't be matched by reading cliffsnotes, and offer insight into the concept of the workings of linguistic mastery.