Why is there someting rather than nothing?

This is probably the best explanation of this going around. It is lengthy but highly worth watching.

“God is unnecessary or at best redundant.” Great quote and well demonstrated in the more than an hour lead up.

15 Responses to Why is there someting rather than nothing?

  1. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    I’ll watch with interest but post now in ignorance. Seems to me “some of this” is highly definitional: what is “nothing.” Lots of massage oil being passed around freely.

    Nothing …………..is ………………..NOTHING.

    Not to include matter and antimatter at the quark level popping into existence and canceling each other out. THAT is something.

    Also, a conflation to equate “nothing” with the vacuum of space as we currently understand it. This IS NOT the condition of the universe before the Big Bang……. or if it is…… some kind of coincidence???

    I freely admit my brain cannot think about these kinds of issues. So many question….. I’m awe struck.

    Does Krouse “really” understand or “know” anything , or is he just accepting some model/theory…. nay hypothetical… as a theoretical possibility and positing that as “science.”

    I think it is fair to assume the universe’s age and that it started at some small area of space all based upon “stuff” expanding in the vectors that it is doing….. but beyond that to opine it was in a nothing mathematical “point” or anything else is just simple beyond my ape brain.

    Call me deficiently human.

  2. I’m impressed bobbo. That’s very insightful. Yes. When you watch it, you will learn that the precise definition of nothing has changed dramatically with increased scientific knowledge. The nothing of the ancient Greeks is as irrelevant as it is nonexistent.

  3. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Hey Scotty….. Ive been reviewing the postings I’ve missed while sucking on a beer. Even though the only D I got in college was “Philosophy” which was all about Aristotle, I don’t think nothing has changed over such time period. Rather….some other definitional confusion has taken place..

    Why do we always stumble on the concept of words/ideas needing to be defined?

    Its what separates us from animals….. from nothing. Sincerely, what else at its root is there to argue about….. aka…. come to understand?

    Its the human condition.

    Note from someplace: the fact that apes can be taught sign language IN CAPTIVITY doesn’t say much about what they do in the wild. Don’t all of us fall short of our maximum capabilities? Even though in captivity we all are?……………….. just no keepers with our best evolution in mind.

  4. ECA says:

    If the title has much to do about the video..This to say BEFORE watching..
    The IDEA of NOTHING..means there is nothing to Talk about.
    no vacuum.. no NOTHING.. and NO ONE to observe it and define it..
    EVEN if there was SOMETHING there…and no Intelligence to Observe it, it would STILL be nothing..

    And for those that dont GET the hint..SPACE isnt a Vacuum, as defined.. defining Vacuum, as nothing is stupid, as THERE IS something there.
    If I place a Marble in a Vacuum, will it become NOTHING..nope.
    the problem with Vacuum, is that Living things have a hard time with Surviving in it..we were RAISED in a Pressured environment..
    Vacuum is the Absence of Pressure, NOT the absence of Living material or Anything..
    NOTHING is not a vacuum, NOTHING is NOTHING..
    But if something can be Observed, there is no longer NOTHING..

    the problem is in DEFINING nothing, into something. what is THere and NOT there..

    nd as to Gravity..I believe in a fluidic Universe..I believe that GRAVITY is not magnetic..

  5. The long upshot of the video, and I do strongly recommend watching it, is that the absence even of the fabric of spacetime is still a quantum vacuum obeying certain laws of physics that would allow and encourage the creation of a zero net energy universe in it, such as ours. The laws of physics may or may not vary from universe to universe. But then, once the fabric of spacetime were created in said new universe, if it is to survive more than a very short time indeed, as in too short for today’s instruments to measure, it will also be a flat zero sum universe like our own. There may or may not be differences in the particular laws of physics in that universe, or the physical constants.

    Anyway, I strongly recommend this video. It is the best explanation of why all god(s) are either unnecessary or at best redundant.

    It takes a surprising amount of physics to get to that conclusion. But, it is well presented and well within your grasp. Having discussed such things with both you and bobbo before, I’m sure you can both handle the advanced physics dumbed down for an intelligent and educated general audience such as ourselves.

    Oh, and there’s a significant amount of comic relief thrown in for our amusement.

  6. Oh, and beer will help. There is sometimes a need for beer (or stronger) when considering just how insignificant we are in this vast universe of which ordinary matter (such as ethanol) makes up just a small percentage.

  7. ECA says:

    Watched most of it..and its Still a declaration that There is Something there, but it cant be measured..
    its the idea that for all the Space we have created, that we are to the point that the GAPS between ALL the material, is creating Gaps..Holes..and some strange things are happening there..

    • I disagree. It’s a statement about the quantum mechanical processes of the vacuum of space (minus the few atoms per cubic meter of intergalactic space).

      There’s something going on in the “nothingness”.

      Also, even in the absence of a universe, the laws of physics leave something going on that would allow for a net zero energy universe such as ours to appear.

      It’s the ultimate case of nature abhorring a vacuum.

  8. ECA says:

    this is the expression of NOT knowing whats there.
    You can pull a cloth to the Taut point, and keep pulling until it starts to rip..but is there a HOLE??
    All the word HOLE means is that the material isnt there..There is STILL something there..even if you say its AIR.. its still a hole..

    The FUN part is what we can DO with a hole..
    Even if you can see Someones Underwear THREW the hole..
    CAN we use the Underwear? Whats the Color of it?? Are they wet? Is there a way to USE the underwear?

    Until we get There or it GETS HERE, we may never know..
    the Fun part is that Science is THINKING, that there is something faster then the speed of light.

  9. Watched this in total:
    -he a very glib speaker, and some of his comments need to be challenged
    -regardless he is very learned, and thinks at a level far beyond most of us
    -regards sub-atomics and energies popping in and out of existence at incredibly fast rates, could this be that this is what supports multiple independent Universii? There has to be a reason(s) for 90% of Gravity being unlink-able to known observable mass(es)! This gives plausibility to independent Universii being undetectable like they are in a different “polarization”! It also brings to mind the fact that Radio Waves and similar energies can propagate across so called empty space a plausibility since there is something there for them to “ring” through as a transition medium!
    All very heavy duty conceptualizations!
    One of the greatest distractions to these concepts is the Homo stupidous reaction that reverts to emotional judgmental comments!
    What does it matter that these concepts are so vast? Insignificance implies that egos have been pricked, stabbed, and utterly squashed! Good rational thinking should be devoid of emotional detractions!

  10. Most of what anyone says should be challenged. But, an appropriate challenge to someone who knows a hell of a lot more about a subject than you or I do would require learning a whole lot more. Else, it’s a challenge based on incredulity or other poor foundations.

    As for multiple universii, they are certainly allowed by our current knowledge of physics in at least a few ways. One simple way is to recognize that the universe extends well beyond our ability to observe it based on the limitation of the speed of light. So, other observable universes almost certainly exist beyond our observational limits. Most likely, but not necessarily, these other observable universes would follow the same laws of physics. And, some observation points would allow partial observation of our observable universe and another one beyond.

    But, when people talk about other universes, this is generally not what they mean.

    The best support for truly separate universes beyond the mere boundaries of our observational ability comes from String Hypothesis. If String Hypothesis (I’m deliberately avoiding calling it a theory) is correct, there is the potential for other universes with at least 10^500 different sets of physical constants all still conforming to String Hypothesis.

    The cool thing about this would be that we could then use the anthropic principle to explain why our universe has laws that (just barely) allow for the evolution of complex life (while still exterminating most of the life that manages to gain a foothold in the otherwise hostile universe in which we live).

    The bad thing is that there is absolutely no evidence at all whatsoever for any other universe.

    Further, to my knowledge, string hypothesis has not yet made a testable prediction and is thus not falsifiable. Until such time as string hypothesis makes some testable prediction, it may even fail to be a working scientific hypothesis, by the definitions of hypothesis and theory used in science. Of course, far brighter minds than mine disagree with me on that point. So, I could just be blowing it out my ass.

    • Rodnikov Magilovich says:

      Regards statements made by Larry Krauss in his talk that I would challenge are several cases where he appeared to miss speak! Re listen/watch for those slips of the tongue! This is typical of a speech given as opposed to a carefully written text that has been proof read and vetted!
      Now, as for evidence that another or several other Universii exist, the first is that 90 or so % of the Gravity measurable CANNOT AT THIS TIME, be attributed to known visible mass(es)! It is also probable that the or these Universii if they do exist, are right here in amongst our Universe in some sort of distribution pattern. Furthermore it is highly likely in my opinion that the laws of Physics, Chemistry, etc. are NOT the same in those Universii and hence they are invisible. Hence the question is that when our subatomic particles which pop in and out of existence at some incredible rate of speed, do they go to one or all of these Universii and populate it’s masses hence the appearance of other Gravities? Call it the Magilovich postulation if you will!
      Of course when something is unexplained / unexplainable, active minds tend to conjure up reasons and explanations that are varying credibilities! Since we are talking about subatomics rather than atoms and molecules, it is more likely that they can reform in such a momentary transition. Maybe this sort of is how the Universii are held together! But then who am I to tilt at Galaxies?

  11. Sorry for the slow reply Rodnikov.

    First, may I say that tilting at galaxies is a really great image? I’m not only wondering how the horse might be dressed for the occasion and what you’d use for a lance, but am definitely imagining a plate mail space suit.

    As for slips of the tongue, assuming I can understand someone’s point, I would not judge anyone harshly for slips of the tongue during a long verbal speech. For me, I would look at the actual points being intentionally made. If they hold up, and I think they do in this video, then I am capable of ignoring a few speakos.

    Your hypothesis about other universii being close to and having an effect on this universe is interesting.

    There are several problems I have with the hypothesis though.

    1. The dark matter is semi-evenly distributed. By this, I mean that even though it sort of bunches up, it appears that there is about the same proportion of dark matter from one galaxy to the next. This would mean that some other universe or universes are somewhat close to this one at all points. This sounds more like extra dimensions to me than extra universes.
    2. Universes that had such broad and significant effects on this universe are probably not separate enough to be considered other universes. These other universes would, by virtue of being so highly detectable in this universe, actually be part of this universe.
    3. Scientists, rather than suggesting what you suggest, have suggested a variety of items since dark matter was discovered that could be the stuff of which dark matter is made. While not all of these suggestions are still in vogue, so to speak (meaning that no one is still seriously considering them), suggestions have included at least: WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects), and baseballs (literally baseball sized objects that are not made of “ordinary matter”). Of these, I believe WIMPs are what scientists are concentrating on most closely. There are now detectors that may some day soon detect natural dark matter in nearby space and experiments within the large hadron collider looking for a new particle that would have mass but neither block nor reflect light.

    That’s not to say that your idea should not be considered. I just would consider it as another hypothesis of dark matter rather than actual evidence of anything. What evidence we have is simply that something massive exists in our universe that is behaving as all mass does with respect to gravity, but is behaving very differently with respect to light. Observations are that our universe is only about 4.6% ordinary matter (atoms), 24% dark matter, and 71.4% dark energy.


    So, if you’re going to use stuff in nearby universes as your hypothesis for dark matter, you’ll have to explain 1. why this stuff causes gravity in our universe but is not observable via light and 2. how does this account for all of the dark energy?

    • Rodnikov Magilovich says:

      The fact that the sub-atomic particles are alleged to pop in and out of existence is the reason for both! They have to go somewhere, to satisfy the Conservation of Mass and Energy! Plus it is just a shot in the DARK….ha ha ha

  12. Oh. I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw. I think a point you may be missing is that matter and antimatter pop into an out of existence in equal quantities. The net is 0. So, this does not violate conservation of mass or energy. When they annihilate, the accounts balance out, so to speak.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: