(October 20, 2013 at 2:03 am)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Another misleading affirmation. This is the problem with equivocating between 'nothingness' as usually meant and however physicist X is using 'nothingness'. If you're going to say that the laws of quantum mechanics allows for weird things, then you're already assuming there is in fact something which follows those laws. And usually when referring to 'nothingness' (itself a contradiction in terms; 'nothingness' isn't a referant), physicists seem to mean empty space. Why not just say 'empty space' (assuming they mean such)?
This is fast becoming the hardest question to answer in physics. What is nothingness? Krauss, in more recent interviews is sticking to his version and saying no particles, no fields, no laws of physics - nothing.
As quantum physics presumably follows some sort of rules (even ones we don't/can't(?) know) one can argue that Krauss' nothing is still not quite nothing.
My problem is I can feel my mind melting as I try to figure this shit out.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
