Why there is something rather than nothing...

[bennyboy]

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.

I'd almost say this very clip should be a sticky post, because it is central to very much of the science/philosophic debates we've had on these forums.  For example, Rhythm and I have often referred to QM in arguments about the nature of the Universe. It's a very good clip, and worth its own thread IMO.

--edit--

This, btw, is one of the reasons that I favor an idealistic world view, rather than a physical monist one, and why I shy away from determinism.

[Arkilogue]

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.

So "quantum" is the magic in the empty space? I thought there was no space or time before inflation? What is the measure of nothing?

[Jehanne]

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

So "quantum" is the magic in the empty space?  I thought there was no space or time before inflation? What is the measure of nothing?

"Nothing" cannot exist; it is a non-sequitur.  It's like asking, "What color is Saturday?"  Eternal cosmologies are one possible answer to the question of ultimate origins.  Yes, science may never know for sure; the problem may be simply unknowable.

[Arkilogue]

So "quantum" is the magic in the empty space?  I thought there was no space or time before inflation? What is the measure of nothing?

"Nothing" cannot exist; it is a non-sequitur.  It's like asking, "What color is Saturday?"  Eternal cosmologies are one possible answer to the question of ultimate origins.  Yes, science may never know for sure; the problem may be simply unknowable.

Which is why I go by this from the physics department of the University of Oregon: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html

Physics of the early Universe is at the boundary of astronomy and philosophy since we do not currently have a complete theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of Nature at the moment of Creation. In addition, there is no possibility of linking observation or experimentation of early Universe physics to our theories (i.e. it's not possible to `build' another Universe). Our theories are rejected or accepted based on simplicity and aesthetic grounds, plus their power of prediction to later times, rather than an appeal to empirical results. This is a very difference way of doing science from previous centuries of research.


Simplicity and aesthetics are nice and everyone likes them but predictive power is where all the evidence we have already collected comes into play.