Was It All An Accident...Or Did An Intelligent

How do you observe ‘nothing’?

How do you define ‘nothing’?

(i’m being relatively serious here)

I think part of the point of the ‘open mind’ part of that quote is that what we consider to be “nothing” is really not necessarily “nothing” in a scientifically/observable way - in other words - even things that appear to be “nothing” are actually “something” else, we would not be able to observe the “nothingness”.

(or something like that - I’m sure a more knowledgeable doper will come along to correct or confirm my take on it).

The problem with that is that then you are just stomping your feet on the ground and complaining, what has taken place is that we are finding that many religions and philosophers were dealing with a “nothing” that never existed. Just another day at the office of the now common march of science and the quest of knowledge that makes humans eat humble pie.

(IMHO it is the march that goes from “we are the center of the universe”, passing through “Even the Milky Way galaxy is not the only thing out there” all the way to the realization that we are an even more minuscule speck in a dot surrounded with a lot of “nothingness” that many philosophers and religions got it wrong.)

IIUC, at a singularity, that was the state of affairs at the Big Bang, all the laws of physics would have broken down, as Stephen Hawking could tell you.

The point here is that you are ignoring the extraordinary context when those things took place.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

I define “nothing” as absence of matter- the stuff that can be neither created nor destroyed
according to the First Law of Thermodynamics. I do not believe durable creation from nothing
can be said to take place in any scientifically meaningful way without violating the First Law.
I do believe creation from nothing could be unambiguously attested by experiment, as the transient virtual particles are.

“The world doesn’t work based on our a priori reasons.”
-Lawrence Krauss

Pure reason is not the right way to understand the universe, you have to experiment and use new tools to get at the reality of what is happening in the universe as we have to avoid our preconceptions and to avoid fooling ourselves.

I think GigoBuster’s first response is a better response to this then what I can do at this time.

Oh, I think a considerable bit of foot-stomping is called for when someone comes along
and tries to tell me nothing = something.

If so not on account of the citation I was doing all that foot-stomping over.

Science and the quest for knowledge are human endeavors and triumphant ones at that,
although there are plenty of big questions that still need answering. I have never been
able to figure out why we should be so damn humble about our discoveries.

I am sick and tired of listening to this silly, useless cliche.

I mentioned this. See post # 118.

It does not do any good for the people who are trying to make a case for the appearance
of something out of nothing now that Thermodynamics and all the other laws of physics
must be strictly accounted for.

As soon as I see anyone utter the word “context”-another useless cliche as most often employed-
I know he has nothing interesting to contribute to the discussion.

Actually the silly replies that you had there do amount to the old cliche of “Putting your fingers in the ears and go LA LA LA”

What you really need is a cite from a physicist that does maintain that things like the first law of thermodynamics was working when that singularity took place.

Krauss, huh?- I’ve heard of him and his something from nothing shell game.

This NYT reviewer, also a PhD in physics, will have none of it:

David Albert: On the Origin of Everything

Thermodynamics is as firmly gounded in experiment and observation as any scientific phenomenon
has ever been, that is, it is a body of knowledge derived a posteriori. If you did not know that then
you really did not bring a horse to this race.

If something is worth paying attention to I pay attention. If not I go LA LA LA.

That means I am through with your vapid replies after this.

Your reading comp not so hot today, Bubba?

I said in post #118: “There is of course a different issue regarding the status of the Laws of Thermodynamics at the moment of the Big Bang. I believe their status was that they and most if not all other present scientific law did not yet exist.”

Got it now?

I did read it too, you are just being contradictory there, you claim to not to take that into account and then right away you claim you do, only that then you are not happy with that.

[QUOTE=colonial]
I do not believe durable creation from nothing
can be said to take place in any scientifically meaningful way without violating the First Law.
[/QUOTE]

What is it then? Do you understand that you can not have it both ways? If you do insist that indeed the laws did not apply, one has to wonder why you are claiming that people like me are wrong.

The evidence here shows who is really not paying attention, he may had been related to physics, but that is not his current profession. In the end the reviewer is not using physics to refute Krauss.

And this also gives away the game, or you just want to continue to contradict yourself.

First Law of Thermodynamics: The increase in internal energy of a closed system is equal to the difference of the heat supplied to the system and the work done by it: ΔU = Q - W
– Wiki thingy

Are you sure that is the law you mean? Or are you referring to the Law of Conservation? And, “… believe …”? What are you doing bringing belief into a thread about god/not-god?

Incidentally, this idea of Krauss of criticizing the classical ideas of “nothing” is not dismissed by other physicists, and this is because reality is showing that what was pointed as “nothing” by many religious minded people before was not really what they assumed it was.

True…but not at the cosmological level, only at the level of stars and planets, and probably galaxies.

The expansionary phase of the big bang obviously violates the laws of Thermodynamics. Space itself expanded vastly, and yet did not lose temperature to maintain a steady thermodynamic state.

Cosmology works on different rules than laboratory physics.

Good morning guys. To me, the system (sand dunes) is still acting randomly. It is only to the outside observer (us) that start perceiving an order to the system.

Give an example of something in the universe that represents order, that is not simply a perception by an observer.

When I think of sand dunes, the sand is just blowing from one place to another, it takes an outside observer to see an order to it. The sand dune itself does not see the actions as being orderly.

You may think this is a warped argument, but by now I’m sure your starting to get use to some of my crazy arguments.

Atheists are a real world example of a system (an individual) that sees their own thoughts as being orderly.

I agree that there needs to be an observer, however, the key is whether the observer is within the system or outside the system.

Then I will rephrase the question: Name something, anything, in the universe that represents order, which is not simply a perception by an observer.

Then you are thinking about them incorrectly. Stop looking at the grains and look at the system. Sand dunes form ordered patterns spontaneously from unordered effects. Think of the materials that make up a crystal. They can be compared to the grains in a sand dune, and can form ordered shapes in exactly the same way.

Um, just about everyone views thier own thoughts as being ordered. Why single out atheists?

Let me try a metaphor.

Okay, let’s say we are the sand dune and God is the outside observer.

Now since we are just grains of sand blowing to who knows where…also we don’t know beans about the universe because of our virtually non-existent minds…everything appears random.

God is outside that system and says everything is forming a pretty pattern, it’s all going according to plan.