Why there is something rather than nothing...

[The Grand Nudger]

-a variation on the theme of whether or not the question is properly formed.  Perhaps there's something, rather than nothing, because nothing is not a sensible concept in reference to the cosmos.  It sounds deep and profound, but in that case the question is actually a trivial absurdism.

It's a convenient (but also rational) answer to a question whose more pedantic answer is simply "We don't know".

[Arkilogue]

-a variation on the theme of whether or not the question is properly formed.  Perhaps there's something, rather than nothing, because nothing is not a sensible concept in reference to the cosmos.  It sounds deep and profound, but in that case the question is actually a trivial absurdism.

It's a convenient (but also rational) answer to a question whose more pedantic answer is simply "We don't know".

Nothing sure has been getting a lot of press lately. Krauss pulls the metaverse from it like a rabbit out of a hat!


Stopping at "We don't know" is little better than "Goddidit" and stopping there.

Don't stop.

[The Grand Nudger]

Except that one isn't stopping...making your comparison a bit hard to understand...I suppose? Sounds more like the common wooster urge to level the ground.

[bennyboy]

-a variation on the theme of whether or not the question is properly formed.  Perhaps there's something, rather than nothing, because nothing is not a sensible concept in reference to the cosmos.  It sounds deep and profound, but in that case the question is actually a trivial absurdism.

It's a convenient (but also rational) answer to a question whose more pedantic answer is simply "We don't know".

Nothing sure has been getting a lot of press lately. Krauss pulls the metaverse from it like a rabbit out of a hat!


Stopping at "We don't know" is little better than "Goddidit" and stopping there.

Don't stop.

If you don't stop at "we don't know," then you're making shit up.

And the great thing is-- we can gradually change what we don't know, which means our "stop" is actually a steady march forward, at least in many areas.

[Magilla]

-a variation on the theme of whether or not the question is properly formed.  Perhaps there's something, rather than nothing, because nothing is not a sensible concept in reference to the cosmos.  It sounds deep and profound, but in that case the question is actually a trivial absurdism.

It's a convenient (but also rational) answer to a question whose more pedantic answer is simply "We don't know".

I especially agree with the part I've emphasised above. I think that what Krauss means by nothing, and what theologians mean by nothing aren't the same.
I think that by nothing, theologians mean nothing whatever, no matter, no energy, no anything, zero, zippo, zilch, sweet Fanny Adams. But we can only try to imagine what that is, because there is something.

When we try to imagine this supposed nothing: "where is it?"; "when was it?"; "for how long was it?" etc. All those questions are only ask-able from the here and now with its somethingness.

"In what  would the nothing be contained?"; ( a trivial absurdism ) - it is contained in our minds, (which are something ). I can't convince myself that true nothingness is even possible. But as you say: "We don't know".

[Arkilogue]

Nothing sure has been getting a lot of press lately. Krauss pulls the metaverse from it like a rabbit out of a hat!


Stopping at "We don't know" is little better than "Goddidit" and stopping there.

Don't stop.

If you don't stop at "we don't know," then you're making shit up.

And the great thing is-- we can gradually change what we don't know, which means our "stop" is actually a steady march forward, at least in many areas.

Ah great so you do and don't stop at "I don't know".

Where have I asserted my journey or sciences journey or the recent several thousand year journey of civilization as anything but an incremental accumulative process over time?

For some perspective, those are 5d forms. Patterns that increase in complexity over time, opposite entropy. DNA is doing the same thing as evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

I especially agree with the part I've emphasised above. I think that what Krauss means by nothing, and what theologians mean by nothing aren't the same.
I think that by nothing, theologians mean nothing whatever, no matter, no energy, no anything, zero, zippo, zilch, sweet Fanny Adams. But we can only try to imagine what that is, because there is something.

When we try to imagine this supposed nothing: "where is it?"; "when was it?"; "for how long was it?" etc. All those questions are only ask-able from the here and now with its somethingness.

"In what  would the nothing be contained?"; ( a trivial absurdism ) - it is contained in our minds, (which are something ). I can't convince myself that true nothingness is even possible. But as you say: "We don't know".

IKR.  Where and when are both spacetime questions.  Questions of something rather than nothing.  Where was nowhere, when was never? Is nothing?  

[bennyboy]

Ah great so you do and don't stop at "I don't know".  

I stop making positive assertions at "I don't know," because only an idiot would assert something they don't know.

Where have I asserted my journey or sciences journey or the recent several thousand year journey of civilization as anything but an incremental accumulative process over time?.

You said you've collected extensive "data," as though you are deeply studying the science of cosmogony. Go ahead, produce it. Wow us.

[ignoramus]

Guys, this only goes for a few minutes... Watch it and tell me if you think that consciousness really does play a role in how we perceive our subjective reality.

[Edwardo Piet]

The real question is why isn't the totality of the existence of all things a void of emptiness teeming with quantum activity like it was before "the universe" (or multiverse) expanded from it?

Why do you assume quantum emptiness is the default starting state?

How does "quantum emptiness"  make matter?

Or is it more plausible that the beginning state was a "quantum fullness" (matter taking up all space) and the "inflation" (cavitation) of a universe made space within the original substance?

Lawrence Krauss' "A Universe From Nothing"= A universe from 'empty' (quantum) space.