Can the laws of physics bring something into existence?

[Freedom of thought]

nobody knows the answer to this. Nobody

Agreed

The "known" universe is getting bigger.
The unknown or undiscovered universe (-conjecture) is the same (just no objects in it yet ...isn't that what we mean by the "known" universe is getting bigger?)
Surely the universe isn't banging on the walls of the "sandbox" and stretching it out.

From our current understanding of the universe, the universe is getting bigger. This is known by how fast objects are moving away from us. Also, the universe has no borders just like a surface of the earth has no borders. You can go in one direction and eventually come back to the same spot.

To suggest there exist something else is unfounded. The popular multiverse theory is motivated by m-theory (string theory v2.0), which has NOT been tested. It's just spectulation based on mathematical metaphysics.

Of course it's just speculation. And at one point Einstein's theory of relativity was just 'speculation' before it was tested. The entire point of the scientific method is to come up with hypotheses and theories, which explain what we see around us. The more theories the better, because from there we can apply a 'natural selection' of theories, by killing off/improving the ones which don't fit experiment. String theory and m-theory accurately depict reality at this point, which is why it is a theory, not just a hypothesis. People also forget that these theories explain why gravity is so weak, so it does have some explanatory power. Some of the grander ideas of these theories need to be tested, yes, but that is no reason to think they aren't plausible. But one major problem with string theory/m-theory, is they are theories of everything and anything, thus it does seem to lose some of its explanatory power. I can't remember who said this, but this is really relevant something along the lines of "if you can explain everything with one thing, you've explained nothing". But some future experiment might show m-theory is the correct fully formed theory of all reality, who knows.

For the most part, I agree. However, I don't think it's really fair to say scientific descriptions are just taken at face value with any further implications.

Whenever you describe something, you also imply something: that there's a reason for the behavior or property you're describing-- and, quite often, it's understood that the ultimate reason hasn't been discovered "yet." So when you talk about the rule of gravity, which is a fairly simple description of the behavior of massive objects at a distance, there's always the understanding: things don't just move-- there is something about the things, or the universe, or both, which allows their movement and necessitates it. We just don't understand what it is.

Nor is it unfair or nonsensical to conflate the mathematical description with that part of reality which underlies it-- whatever that might be. The words "law of gravity," therefore, can be equally taken to refer to the mathematical description of gravity as to the underlying aspect of reality which causes things to move.

For the most part, I agree. However, I don't think it's really fair to say scientific descriptions are just taken at face value with any further implications.

Huh? Where did I claim scientific descriptions are taken at face value? I never said that. Nothing about science should ever be taken at face value. It is precisely because science says to repeatedly test and falsify and get peer review that we have our modern knowledge.

Saying that new data may build upon our current understanding is not the same as clinging to bad claims or bad data. I am saying an "open mind" does not require us to let our brains fall out.

There still are scientific reasons we call things "laws".

I don't think it's correct to say the laws are acting causally on these things. But, there are guidelines and restrictions on the physical universe we inhabit. The laws of physics, I don't think are 'causing' anything to happen, but it does show us what WILL happen next. And these regularities are considered laws.

[ignoramus]

Just watched this.
2 hours of bliss.
Richard Dawkins and renown theoretical Physicist Lawrence Krause
they talk about everything from evolution to matter being formed out of nothing ...it all made sense!

[Whateverist]

To suggest there exist something else is unfounded. The popular multiverse theory is motivated by m-theory (string theory v2.0), which has NOT been tested. It's just spectulation based on mathematical metaphysics.

Sounds like cosmological solipsism. We can (apparently) only directly perceive our own universe. Therefore 'others' are speculative. Absolutely right about it being speculation. But any answer to the question of whether the universe we can experience is all there can be is equally speculation.

[Surgenator]

To suggest there exist something else is unfounded. The popular multiverse theory is motivated by m-theory (string theory v2.0), which has NOT been tested. It's just spectulation based on mathematical metaphysics.

Sounds like cosmological solipsism. We can (apparently) only directly perceive our own universe. Therefore 'others' are speculative. Absolutely right about it being speculation. But any answer to the question of whether the universe we can experience is all there can be is equally speculation.

You're correct about us can only directly precieve our own universe. There are two ways we can know if a multiple universes exist. 1) Another universe collides with ours. 2) We have a nearly accurate description of our universe to be able to infer the existence of other universes.

M-theory has not been tested, and I don't consider it valid until it has. M-theory is popular amounts theoretical physicist because of it's mathematical simplicity and complex behaviors that can arise. One of the simpliest test that can be done is a test for extra dimensions. So far no luck.