Is nothing only perceived as blackness, or is it actually blackness?

[Juma]

No regarding this point. We're talking about the book he published, not the length of his penis. The reality then is just that. Krauss made a fool of himself peddling an absurd story line instead of sticking to science. He did that either by hubris, for commercial gain, or possibly for some other sordid reason.
Reality beats scientists too, even good ones.
EB

What? Is there something in the book that isnt supported by science? If not why wouldnt the vehicle of a story line be allowed?

 

[untermensche]

No regarding this point. We're talking about the book he published, not the length of his penis. The reality then is just that. Krauss made a fool of himself peddling an absurd story line instead of sticking to science. He did that either by hubris, for commercial gain, or possibly for some other sordid reason.
Reality beats scientists too, even good ones.
EB

What? Is there something in the book that isnt supported by science? If not why wouldnt the vehicle of a story line be allowed?

His conclusions from the science are the problem.

The age old argument by believers in the gods is that something cannot come from nothing.

Krauss claimed he addressed this dilemma.

But it turns out Krauss's definiton of "nothing" is: The "laws" of Quantum Theory and nothing else.

Which isn't "nothing". It isn't close.

 

[Juma]

What? Is there something in the book that isnt supported by science? If not why wouldnt the vehicle of a story line be allowed?

His conclusions from the science are the problem.

The age old argument by believers in the gods is that something cannot come from nothing.

Krauss claimed he addressed this dilemma.

But it turns out Krauss's definiton of "nothing" is: The "laws" of Quantum Theory and nothing else.

Which isn't "nothing". It isn't close.

It's the only nothing there is.

 

[untermensche]

His conclusions from the science are the problem.

The age old argument by believers in the gods is that something cannot come from nothing.

Krauss claimed he addressed this dilemma.

But it turns out Krauss's definiton of "nothing" is: The "laws" of Quantum Theory and nothing else.

Which isn't "nothing". It isn't close.

It's the only nothing there is.

No.

Nothing would be the absence of the "laws" of Quantum Theory. It would be the absence of any possible entity or structure or guiding "rules".

If you say the "laws" of Quantum Theory exist then something exists. You are not starting from "nothing".

 

[Juma]

It's the only nothing there is.

No.

Nothing would be the absence of the "laws" of Quantum Theory. It would be the absence of any possible entity or structure or guiding "rules".

If you say the "laws" of Quantum Theory exist then something exists. You are not starting from "nothing".

You realize that this is simply speculation?
And a very weird speculation indeed.
The only possible nothing (no entities) is what he is talking about.

A universe of nothing isnt a universe.

 

[untermensche]

No.

Nothing would be the absence of the "laws" of Quantum Theory. It would be the absence of any possible entity or structure or guiding "rules".

If you say the "laws" of Quantum Theory exist then something exists. You are not starting from "nothing".

You realize that this is simply speculation?

What is speculation?

Krauss is mislabeling, not speculating.

He is not starting from nothing. He is starting from the "laws" of Quantum Theory.

From the "laws" of Quantum Theory alone a universe can emerge.

Which is greeted by a big "So what?"

"Where did those "laws" come from?"

 

[Juma]

What is speculation?

The existence of a state of absolutely nothing. It has not been observed and is not implied in any way by current empirical evidens.

 

[4321lynx]

What is speculation?

The existence of a state of absolutely nothing. It has not been observed and is not implied in any way by current empirical evidens.

It can never be "observed". Nothing to observe and no observer to do the observing.

And "blackness" only describes the state of the observer's eyes and CNS, not what is "out there" beyond the observer in reality.

 

[untermensche]

What is speculation?

The existence of a state of absolutely nothing. It has not been observed and is not implied in any way by current empirical evidens.

It is a concept.

And it can easily be defined as the absence of all. Including Quantum Theory.

But Krauss didn't care about what the concept really means. He had books to sell.

 

[Juma]

The existence of a state of absolutely nothing. It has not been observed and is not implied in any way by current empirical evidens.

It is a concept.

And it can easily be defined as the absence of all. Including Quantum Theory.

But Krauss didn't care about what the concept really means. He had books to sell.

Santa is also a concept. Doesnt mean that he exist.

 

[untermensche]

It is a concept.

And it can easily be defined as the absence of all. Including Quantum Theory.

But Krauss didn't care about what the concept really means. He had books to sell.

Santa is also a concept. Doesnt mean that he exist.

"Nothingness" is the absence of existence.

Take away all that exists, including Quantum Theory, and you are left with "nothingness".

And I don't claim it is possible for a human to take away all that exists.

But it is a rational concept. Unlike some old man who employs elves and flies with the use of reindeer.

 

[Speakpigeon]

No regarding this point. We're talking about the book he published, not the length of his penis. The reality then is just that. Krauss made a fool of himself peddling an absurd story line instead of sticking to science. He did that either by hubris, for commercial gain, or possibly for some other sordid reason.
Reality beats scientists too, even good ones.
EB

What? Is there something in the book that isnt supported by science? If not why wouldnt the vehicle of a story line be allowed?

Yes. His contention that the universe came out of nothing:

The existence of a state of absolutely nothing. It has not been observed and is not implied in any way by current empirical evidens.

As to the story line it's irrelevant. Allowed? He is free to write what he likes. We are free to judge his story line as idiotic.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

It is a concept.

And it can easily be defined as the absence of all. Including Quantum Theory.

But Krauss didn't care about what the concept really means. He had books to sell.

Santa is also a concept. Doesnt mean that he exist.

Stll wasting time with nothing.
EB

 

[Juma]

Santa is also a concept. Doesnt mean that he exist.

Stll wasting time with nothing.
EB

You still being a moron? You seem to be better than being a jerk. Why then be one?