Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: A More-Better Nothing

Expand Messages
  • wsindarius
    Jim, Ironically enough, I recommend Lawrence Krauss book, A Universe from Nothing, or one of many YiouTube Videos by him on the subject (but the book is
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 30, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim,

      Ironically enough, I recommend Lawrence Krauss' book, A Universe from Nothing, or one of many YiouTube Videos by him on the subject (but the book is better), that explains just that: how the old notion of vacuum is wrong. Nothing, in that sense, "happens", as it were.



      Wil



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Jim <jjimstuart1@...>
      To: existlist <existlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sat, Mar 30, 2013 4:00 am
      Subject: [existlist] Re: A More-Better Nothing





      Knott,

      I agree with your line of thought here.

      In terms of physics, I would call an area of space with nothing in it a vacuum. I cannot see how anything – even tiny sub-atomic particles – could be produced out of a vacuum.

      There used to be philosophical disputes about whether vacuums could exist, but not now.

      If there was nothing but an infinite vacuum before the big bang, I cannot understand how a big bang could happen. But I am not a physicist.

      Jim

      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "fictiveparrot" <knott12@...> wrote:
      >
      > > How might the two arguments go in defense
      > > of nothing-as-rest or nothing-as-unrest?
      >
      > If nothing were unrest, it would not be nothing because there would be energy.
      >
      > > Can absolute rest cause something? Can it change states?
      >
      > The thing that I was suggesting is that a state of rest may have limitations. To become anything other than nothing, something would be created. It isn't the same as nothing turning into something -- at least not exactly.
      >
      > > Absolute unrest seems a more likely condition for effecting appearance.
      >
      > Unrest = something. Logically you can't have 'nothing' in unrest as then it has some type of energy. Any disturbance in nothing is something.
      >
      > Just to say it for the sake of consistency: this is just how I am thinking of it. I can claim no validity of the model. I find it pleasing.
      >
      > Maurie Lesser
      >









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jim
      Thanks for that, Wil, I ll put Krauss s book on my reading list. The poor old vacuum - no longer even a nothing! You can t get much lower than that. Jim
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 30, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for that, Wil, I'll put Krauss's book on my reading list.

        The poor old vacuum - no longer even a nothing! You can't get much lower than that.

        Jim


        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
        >
        > Jim,
        >
        > Ironically enough, I recommend Lawrence Krauss' book, A Universe from Nothing, or one of many YiouTube Videos by him on the subject (but the book is better), that explains just that: how the old notion of vacuum is wrong. Nothing, in that sense, "happens", as it were.
        >
        >
        >
        > Wil
      • fictiveparrot
        ... I think vacuum suggests less than nothing, which is why I suggested that I would think nothing is rest--without energy. Vacuum seems more like a black
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 31, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          > In terms of physics, I would call an area
          > of space with nothing in it a vacuum.

          I think vacuum suggests less than nothing, which is why I suggested that I would think nothing is rest--without energy. Vacuum seems more like a black hole, which I believe is the opposite of something, anti-matter, to some extent. I don't see nothing like in my model.

          > I cannot see how anything – even tiny sub-atomic
          > particles – could be produced out of a vacuum.

          Well, I am not exactly sure home they make salt into those nice little crystals, but I am sure someone does. I don't know how to use machine language, but essentially I use it daily. I don't know if gawd exists or not, but I am certainly not going to base that determination on my lack of understanding. But it is also relatively easy to think of gawd.

          If nothing is REST, and not a vacuum, you might get something and its opposite from that. I don't know that I can define how any more than I can help you make salt. If you want instructions you have to read the package.

          > If there was nothing but an infinite
          > vacuum before the big bang

          I think that would be incorrect. But its just an idea.

          > ...I am not a physicist.

          You are certainly claiming a lot of underlying physics by the whole declaration of the vacuum knowledge.

          Knott Gnitt
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.