>The universe came from nothing Why isn't that ambient

>words words words words

How do you define "thing"? Aren't we "nothing" already by definition? Because what would be the "fundamental" unit of the universe anyway?

>>7853722
You're making no sense

Define Universe.
Define nothing.
Define ambient energy.
Define exist.

How can we know for sure that we aren't ghosts?

>>7854116
OP here. Yes, please, do.

>>7853680
Fuck off back to >>>/r/eddit you dumb shit

>>7854113
You're the one who is not making sense, faggot. Your questions are unanswerable, not because we don't know the answer, but due to the ambiguity of the concepts you're using. You probably think you're pretty smart, but you're just behaving like the typical pseudo-intellectual who asks "2deep4u" questions thinking they sound intelligent.

You need to make a clear definition of the concepts you are using. Not everyone will understand them in the same way you do. This topic almost always degrades into a semantics discussion due to a lack of explanations due to people like you.

Define "thing" and the concepts this anon >>7854116 says, and then we will be able to talk.

Universe means "everything combined into 1". That means if you label "nothing" it will be included into the Universe. Because you can't have a lack of "Universe". Thus, everything includes "nothing" meaning "nothing" can not exist.

File: 180px_IGC_Chart_7437f.png (35KB, 1227x846px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1227x846px

>>7854678

>>7854678
This logic and subject matter has been done by the greeks .... read karl popper and u will find the "answers"

>>7854678
Ok Plato lmao

>>7854688
>>7854693
I really had no clue. There were no philosophy classes in my schools and the only required reading was 1 Shakespeare play and a couple presidential biographies. None of which I read because no one actually cared about that so long as you could score a touchdown.

>>7854711
Stop being a faggot and read more widely ... formal education is too limiting
Expand your mind man

File: 1327600944061.jpg (450KB, 2736x3648px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 2736x3648px

>>7854725
Hey, man, if it wasn't written after 2,000 AD it isn't worth reading. Besides, everything is on video now. If I wanted to learn about plato shit I'd pirate a documentary and listen to it while organizing my pcb components.

>>7854645
>You're the one who is not making sense, faggot. Your questions are unanswerable, not because we don't know the answer, but due to the ambiguity of the concepts you're using. You probably think you're pretty smart, but you're just behaving like the typical pseudo-intellectual who asks "2deep4u" questions thinking they sound intelligent.


No, dumbass, I'm responding to the idea of "the universe coming from 'nothing'" that gets touted around nowadays. It's important for those people who say it to define their terms so I ask what they mean by universe and nothing. The latter question is said straightforwardly and the former question is implied as I seem to see scientists argue for exactly how it came from 'nothing' by speaking of things which brought it about so I must ask what they mean by "universe" if those things spoken (the "ambient energy" I reference in the OP that you see scientists reference when speaking of a quantum vacuum - virtual particles and such) about that bring it about are not included in the claim.

You're retarded to say >>7854116 has any validity as I'm ASKING people to define things like this. Look at the last fucking question in the OP. Asking me to answer my own question when I'm unaware and asking for help is nonsensical.

>>7855221
You only asked for a definition of "nothing". I asked you to define "thing", and >>7854116
asked you to define the concepts you used without questioning their definition in the OP.

It seems that you aren't even aware of the non-sense you're spouting, so I kindly invite you to leave this website and reorganize your thoughts before expressing them in this board.

>>7855283
>You only asked for a definition of "nothing".
I also asked for the definition of what it means to be the universe in an indirect way >>7853680 and already told you that >>7855221

Asking me for definitions gets you no where because I'm asking for the definitions and logic that are used to assert a claim I see people use. How I define terms is irrelevant.


>It seems that you aren't even aware of the non-sense you're spouting
It seems you're just ignorant. Feel free to stop posting.

Retarded thread mods delete pls

File: 1400977845303.jpg (45KB, 352x395px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 352x395px

>>7855339
>I also asked for the definition of what it means to be the universe in an indirect way
>in an indirect way

Kek, what a waste of time. Here's your reply.

>>7855366
Agreed

>>7855221
Woah woah woah, no scientist says the universe literally "came from nothing". This is simply a strawman meme created by fundamentalist Christians. The answer is that we don't know. And before you mention Lawrence Krauss, realize that the idea of the book is basically making fun of this strawman by subverting it.

>>7855396
Well cool, but please explain what is actually being said then.

>>7855398
What is being said by whom?

>>7855403
Lets say, Krauss to get us started.

>>7855396
>This is simply a strawman meme created by fundamentalist Christians.

I don't quite get this claim, as the "God was not needed to create the Universe" meme started with scientists, not Christians. It's deliberately made by scientists to throw at Christians, ignoring that there might be differences in how they understand terms between both groups.

>>7855418
Krauss seems to prefer the hypothesis that the universe began from quantum fluctuations in the lowest energy state of spacetime, which can be seen as analogous to "empty space".

>>7855425
>I don't quite get this claim, as the "God was not needed to create the Universe" meme started with scientists, not Christians.
How does that respond to what you're replying to?

Do Christians assert that God created the universe? Yes. Do Christian apologeticists argue that God is necessary to explain the universe's existence? Yes. Do atheists assert that the universe came from nothing? No.

The idea behind "the universe from nothing" rests on assumptions only theists make: That the "default state" of the universe is nothing and that the universe had to have a beginning. It's like Christians took their specific worldview, removed God from it, and then thought that this is what atheists must be arguing for.

File: 1448486265115.png (12KB, 142x201px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 142x201px

>>7853722

these threads are unreadable

>>7855539
Define "semantics" :^)

>>7854116
>Define Universe.
This 'area' that includes everything we can get information about.
>Define nothing.
Not anything.
>Define ambient energy.
No idea
>Define exist.
To be.

File: semantic arguments.png (433KB, 684x1567px) Image search: [Google]

433KB, 684x1567px

>>7855539

File: 1448480925060.png (7KB, 151x279px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 151x279px

>>7855667
kek

>>7853680
The universe came from a singularity, and is expanding into itself.

Time is something that exists within the universe. There is no "before" the universe.

Read Descartes

Ok morons before you go ANY further
Define:
Space
Time
Force
If done correctly, you will realize that the future exists the conclusion of which space-time-force manifold always has and always will exist, no more no less.

>>7854645
Are you not embarrased by your hostility? I'm wondering if you are someone who is in search of a deeper meaning to life. Not having one may explain your attitude to sincere questions. (OP's question is valid and not void of sense. There are many things we don't know but it has never stopped human kind to ponder on them...) If that's the case, then why the hostility?

>>7855720
He was the first one to show aggresivity for saying that I was not making any sense. There are more polite ways of expressing the same idea, and since he didn't, I saw no reason to reply accordingly.

I have no problem with people who ask things like OP. Most of the time (like in this case). I don't agree with the way they're formulated and the lack of concrete definitions (which sadly happens almost always when discussing abstracts), but I can still tolerate these discussions, and even point out these problems without being hostile.

Except when they are.

>>7855449
Wonderful, now we can get to the question in the OP:

>Krauss seems to prefer the hypothesis that the universe began from quantum fluctuations in the lowest energy state of spacetime, which can be seen as analogous to "empty space".

Surely it cannot be as a space with something as a non-zero energy state is most definitely still not empty despite its little energy. However, I'm not sure how this explains how "the universe began" without assuming that the stuff that fluctuated that began it were not part of the universe to begin with. If its considered part of the universe then this is just explaining how the universe went from one state to another, if it is not part of the universe I must ask how it exists in relation to the universe.

>>7853680
"Nothing" is an incoherent concept. You ascribe a positive existential modifier simply by discussing it and thus it becomes a problem of language. There is no nothing.

>>7856703
I would have to agree. OP here. However, there are several definitions of words and I wish for people to explain how things are defined when speaking about a specific topic.

>>7855780

>He was the first one to show aggresivity for saying that I was not making any sense.

If you think >>7854113 was aggression you should see what it was responding to.

>>7856703
Nice deductions Watson.

>>7856699
You're just playing around with semantics. Again, there is no reason to assume the default state of the universe is "nothing" and there is no reason to assume the universe had a "beginning". So saying that the lowest energy state is not "nothing" or that the evolution of the universe from one state to the next is not a "beginning" is pointless. It's like pointing out that the Big Bang is not an "explosion". You're confusing the concept for the semantics describing the concept.

>>7856729
>Again, there is no reason to assume the default state of the universe is "nothing" and there is no reason to assume the universe had a "beginning".

I don't intend to assume as much, I'm going off what I read and hear on the subject. Does not what I'm responding to >>7855449 speaking on Krauss say just as much?

>"Krauss seems to prefer the hypothesis that the universe began from..."

There seems to me that there are only two understandings of this:

>The universe came about by something other than it
>There is no before the universe but the earliest state of it is this low energy state

Is there an issue with this?

>You're confusing the concept for the semantics describing the concept.

I'd contend that heavily. If people are going to say that such a finding says anything of a start to the universe then the distinction between understanding it as "an actual start of the universe" and "changing from one state of the universe to another" is heavily important. Further, if it were just semantics then what is the problem with asking questions to get the proper understanding of the terms? To say "the universe began from quantum fluctuations" can imply two different definitions, as I've already said, which should be sorted out to anyone curious about the situation. There's nothing particularly wrong with sorting through language problems so people grasp the situation properly.

Hi. I came across your interesting post, and thought I would try and answer. Just want to say, I’m not a scientist. I’m responding as if we had met in person; so, I hope you’ll forgive the really simple example, but these are difficult questions for me to try and answer.
I’m going to use soda cans to illustrate with the cans representing the two origins of the universe, with 0 = nothing, and 3 = something.
Now, to answer your question of why nothing is not considered part of the universe: if I said to you to hand me 0 cans, that would be impossible to do, as there is literally no part of a can, in the physical, visible, invisible or any realities there to hand. However, we know the opposite is true if I ask for 3 cans, as they all exist in the physical and visible realities. All 3 are a something. Nothing is not considered part of the universe because the universe is full of somethings, and everything in it begets and is begot by a something. So, since a nothing cannot beget a something, I would argue that this is why nothing is not part of the universe.
Likewise, it cannot exist in relation to the universe because all things in the universe are, again, somethings; they each have a beginning. Say I tell you to remove the 3 cans and put them somewhere other than where they were. You do that, and now you have two 0 cans in front of you. The difference is that the first 0 cans didn’t have a beginning, middle, or end, it was nothing. Where as the second pile now has 0 cans, but started with 3, all that was changed was the removal of the cans from where they are now to somewhere else. Nothing cannot relate because there was never anything in the beginning in any reality to relate to.
For your last question, I would define nothing in this scenario as the origin theory that relies on no First Cause creating all somethings in the universe, from physical to non-tangible things such as time.
Sorry for the length, but I hope that helps.

>>7856749
>Does not what I'm responding to >>7855449 speaking on Krauss say just as much?
See >>7855396

>There seems to me that there are only two understandings of this:
>The universe came about by something other than it
>There is no before the universe but the earliest state of it is this low energy state
No, these are so vague as to be meaningless. You aren't figuring anything out about the universe by using this shitty process of elimination.

>I'd contend that heavily. If people are going to say that such a finding says anything of a start to the universe then the distinction between understanding it as "an actual start of the universe" and "changing from one state of the universe to another" is heavily important.
What does "an actual start of the universe" mean? Again, this fully depends on what you mean by universe. There is no scientific theory that describes what you are trying to make a distinction between, because you seem to have a concept of "nothing turning into something" which no one theorizes about.

>>7856846
>See [link]
Okay so what is Krauss saying?

>No, these are so vague as to be meaningless. You aren't figuring anything out about the universe by using this shitty process of elimination.

Okay so what is Krauss saying?

>What does "an actual start of the universe" mean?

Really depends on the person trying to make the claim. I would personally define it as all matter and space viewed as a whole. However, when I make that link you quote we must understand that when people get thrown around phrases how they understood will be different. How people understand lines like "nothing" currently differ between some people in academia, it seems.


>There is no scientific theory that describes what you are trying to make a distinction between, because you seem to have a concept of "nothing turning into something" which no one theorizes about.

Okay so what is Krauss saying?

>>7856846
>There is no scientific theory that describes what you are trying to make a distinction between

The anon is trying to explain people gathering an understanding from language used to describe theories, not parse theories themselves, you dumbass.