If there was a 1st moment in time.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think he's trying to make comment abut how "nothing"  - or as most people would consider quantum vacuum fluctautions "nothing", aren't the problem that most people imagine them to be.

Sure, there was always "something" but the something that always was is commonly conceived of as "nothing" by laypersons.

[Fake Messiah]

Even if there was a beginning of the universe done by some intelligent being, it tells us nothing in particular about this alleged god-being. There is certainly nothing about Christian theology in the argument; this god could exist but yet be the Muslim god or one of the Hindu gods or a Greek or Norse or Native American or any other god, or it could be an impersonal energy or the devil.

In fact it does not even insist that this god exists now but that it existed at the beginning.

[Little lunch]

Can you please kindly go fuck yourself in private?

That's not very nice.

---

I dislike these 'How the universe started' threads because no one knows or ever will know.
There'll be a completely different theory in 50, 100, or 200 years so why bother?
I suppose I'm not qualified to say that.

[WinterHold]

If we ruled the "Big Bang" theory to be our context of judging; then yes, there is a point -called the Singularity- that the universe as a whole came from.

Check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

Quantum Fluctuations led this singularity to expand rapidly. Before the point of Quantum Fluctuations there is nothing; not even the word nothing itself, not even the word itself.

But that if you believe in the theory of "The Big Bang". Personally; I believe in it, and think it makes lots of sense.
God started all of that and existed before the expansion of the singularity. Actually; the existence of God makes this theory more believable. I believe it was the scenario.

[pocaracas]

If there is a first moment in time,  it didn't always exist.

You want to have your mind blown?

If a photon was produced at that hypothetical first moment in time and if would travel through empty space without hitting anything, from the point of view of that photon, no time will have elapsed.... until now.... until whenever.

From that photon's point of view (if such a wording can be used), that first instant of time is the single one that has always existed.

---

---

Don't make judgments about time, space, space-time and the like, concerning extreme circumstances, when you're drawing upon your simple local experience of those things.

Empty space-time (what Krauss calls "nothing") can bring forth energy and particles. Extrapolating the concept... space-time might be able to bring forth Universes.

[purplepurpose]

I feel right now all I can do is to work till I die. Big bang, Magical God, aliens, Supernatural stuff doesn't matter at all.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How many times do we get the "fenced in" effect? "I want to discuss something with universal implications, but I want to constrain the conversation to materials I'm comfortable with."

[Edwardo Piet]

I think he's trying to make comment abut how "nothing"  - or as most people would consider quantum vacuum fluctautions "nothing", aren't the problem that most people imagine them to be.

Most people would not consider quantum fluctuations to be nothing. Most people would consider quantum fluctuations to be quantum fluctuations.

Krauss hasn't just been rightly criticized by philosophers by calling something "nothing" he's been criticized by other physicists too.

The thing is "A Universe from a Quantum Vacuum Teeming With Quantum Activity" isn't as catchy of a book title.

But to come up with a catchy book title is one thing... but to try and defend such an idea is ridiculous lol.

In the New York Times, philosopher of science and physicist David Albert said the book failed to live up to its title; he claimed Krauss dismissed concerns about what Albert calls his misuse of the term nothing.

Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."

Sure, there was always "something" but the something that always was is commonly conceived of as "nothing" by laypersons.

No it isn't lol. Everyone knows that anything at all isn't nothing. Krauss just came up with a misleading title to help him sell a book.

He should have called it "A Universe from Almost Nothing".

Even as a child I knew that something wasn't ever nothing lol.

---

[...]from the point of view of that photon, no time will have elapsed.... until now.... until whenever.

From that photon's point of view (if such a wording can be used), that first instant of time is the single one that has always existed.

So it looks like maybe Parmenides, my favorite philosopher, was right after all. Time and change is an illusion and everything is ultimately one and undifferentiated

When Popper called Einstein "Parmenides" it was intended as an insult. But I'd take it as a compliment

In "the way of truth" (a part of the poem), he explains how reality (coined as "what-is") is one, change is impossible, and existence is timeless, uniform, necessary, and unchanging. In "the way of opinion", he explains the world of appearances, in which one's sensory faculties lead to conceptions which are false and deceitful. He has been considered to be the founder of metaphysics or ontology.
[...]
Parmenides made the ontological argument against nothingness, essentially denying the possible existence of a void. According to Aristotle, this led Democritus and Leucippus, and many other physicists, to propose the atomic theory, which supposes that everything in the universe is either atoms or voids, specifically to contradict Parmenides' argument. Aristotle himself reasoned, in opposition to atomism, that in a complete vacuum, motion would encounter no resistance, and "no one could say why a thing once set in motion should stop anywhere; for why should it stop here rather than here? So that a thing will either be at rest or must be moved ad infinitum, unless something more powerful get in its way."

Erwin Schrödinger identified Parmenides' monad of the "Way of Truth" as being the conscious self in "Nature and the Greeks". The scientific implications of this view have been discussed by scientist Anthony Hyman.

A shadow of Parmenides' ideas can be seen in the physical concept of Block time, which considers existence to consist of past, present, and future, and the flow of time to be illusory. In his critique of this idea, Karl Popper called Einstein "Parmenides". However, Popper did write:

So what was really new in Parmenides was his axiomatic-deductive method, which Leucippus and Democritus turned into a hypothetical-deductive method, and thus made part of scientific methodology.

[Edwardo Piet]

From that photon's point of view (if such a wording can be used), that first instant of time is the single one that has always existed.

My emphasis.

I didn't even know this about science. But look what I already said in the thread in an earlier post:

If there is a first moment in time,  it didn't always exist.

I disagree.

The first thing to have existed in time existed at all times. It just didn't exist before time. Because, of course, no time has existed before time. That wouldn't even make any sense.

... does this mean I'm actually a photon?

[The Grand Nudger]

Everyone knows that anything at all isn't nothing. Krauss just came up with a misleading title to help him sell a book.

He should have called it "A Universe from Almost Nothing".

Even as a child I knew that something wasn't ever nothing lol.

We can't all be that kid at the temple that the priests come to for advice. 

Consider this..christians believe that their god created the universe from nothing.  Whatever something god was in, before he created the universe..is conceptualized as a nothing by them.  Similarly, if you ask a layperson about a vacuum they're likely to tell you it's an empty space.  Nothing in it.  Yes, the title is good for selling books..it's a catchy title...but the reason that it's catchy is that it does tap into how people commonly see these things.

Amusingly, chapter 9 of that book is titled "Nothing is Something", in that chapter he expresses his distaste for how we conceptualize nothing, particularly in that the way we do so might lead a person to classify the something he;s talking about -as- nothing...and that the term itself isn't really coherent in physics.