jayriginal:

I'd put it slightly differently.

I'd ask if it is possible for the non physical to affect the physical.

thehomer:

Yes. I think your presentation would better agree with what I'm trying to say.

Are thoughts physical things?

Do they affect physical things?

This alone answers your question.

Deep Sight:

No, theists do not subscribe to the idea of something from nothing: they rather have always subscribed to the idea of an eternal and permanent something.

Additionally, if he accedes that "empty" space is something, then what he saying about something from nothing? CAN you now see why I say its a non starter?



This is because nothingness by definition is NO THING: i.e: it does not exist: as such this is where your Krauss goofs when he attempts to discuss something from nothing: there is nothing like nothingness in the first place - and it is worse that he does this by attempting to propose the evidentially false notion that the total energy in the universe is zero. He shoots himself in the foot by his description of "empty" space already - i.e: it is not empty.



Haba this one na lie o: my approach to everyone is generally the same, save some tin gods who I revere and prostrate for.

"The idea of a permanent and eternal something'?
which arose from a .............something else or a nothing?

Outside of religious lore, what does eternal really mean?

The christians claim that jesus, himself a god, is the only beggoten son of god, another god,who is also co-god with the holy spirit, etc, in their voodoo arithmetic.
The point is that if god jesus is begotten, then why can't god almighty , also be begotten by some other unknown almightier almighty, and so on?

thehomer:

I do no such thing. What I would show is that the concept of "nothing" has changed due to the advances of modern science.

This is a falsity. The concept of nothingness has never changed anywhere except in the minds of deluded goons such as Krauss.

Nothingness means no thing. Period.

We relatively only figured that out recently.

This is a point in favour of that which I am saying: if we have figured out that there is no perfect vacuum anywhere, then Krauss's contradictory discourse collapses with that.

And there we disagree unless you're willing to extend the idea of a God being a physical process or mechanism.

Even where, for the sake of argument, I was willing to say that God is physical (which I do not believe), no one responded to the points I set out and the thread I commenced.

https://www.nairaland.com/970734/contentions-idehn-existence-god-time

Here you go. I don't think that we're even qualified to discuss it. Or do you understand the advanced calculations necessary to show it?

Here are the exact words on your wiki page:

The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. When the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations.[1][2][3] The amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity

Now tell me exactly why the energy in the form of matter should be considered cancelled out by the energy in the form of gravity so as to arrive at zero - the absolute zero relevant to this discussion - namely - nothing.

Tell me, just tell me.

It's a false hypothesis, son.

Now, comming to your second link, answer is no, I do not understand such calculations: nor do I need to understand them once they are based on a wrong premise in relation to my argument. Remember that this discussion is about the possibility of something coming from nothing, and as such the only proper defnition of zero in relation to this discussion is total nothingness: which does not exist. As such, the definition of zero being used under the discourse of Stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor is NOT this absolute zero which is relevant to this discussion. This is why it is hopelessly misguided to refer to such as showing that "the universe may literaily pop up from nothingness" as Krauss does. I hope you understand this clearly.

For emphasis, I quote again from your second wiki-link:

In the theory of general relativity, a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor, such as the Landau–Lifshitz pseudotensor, is an extension of the non-gravitational stress–energy tensor which incorporates the energy-momentum of gravity. It allows the energy-momentum of a system of gravitating matter to be defined. In particular it allows the total of matter plus the gravitating energy-momentum to form a conserved current within the framework of general relativity, so that the total energy-momentum crossing the hypersurface (3-dimensional boundary) of any compact space-time hypervolume (4-dimensional submanifold) vanishes.

Please note the bold words above: this is not an equation that results in nothingness. It is an equation specific to the calculation of positive energy from matter and negative energy from gravity: this does not result in nothingness: and as such is NOT the zero relevant to this discussion: which would be absolute nothingness.

It is also critical that I point out to you that even with the Zero Universe Hypothesis, it is said that the cancelation equation results not necessarily in zero, but perhaps in negligible energy. Again from your first link -

A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.

I point this out just to show that even with the hypothetical model, an absolute zero is not definitively presumed!

Nevertheless this still has no impact on my argument: for as I mentioned above, the zero referred to, and relevant for this discussion, is absolute nothingness. Dear friend, absolute nothingness does no feature anywhere in any of these equations.

Finally I should point out to you that the supposed cancellation of material positive energy and gravitational negative energy is a net calculation. In other words you are speaking of a mathematical net zero, and not the zero which is relevant to this discussion - absolute zero.

I leave you with the words of Patrick R. Briney, PHD, in his debate on this matter regarding the existence of God from the First Law of Thermodynamics -

"Energy exists, and the known laws governing the natural universe show us that it is impossible for it to have originated naturally. The idea of a net-zero-energy universe is a highly speculative attempt to explain how energy exists without violating the FLT. But two things suggest this idea is wrong: 1) the conservation of nothing is nothing, and 2) supposed vacuum experiments are not absolute voids and therefore do not show something coming from nothing."

I was pleased to note that his point no (2) above is a point I have repeatedly made against you guys on this same issue.

plaetton:

"The idea of a permanent and eternal something'?
which arose from a .............something else or a nothing?

Do permanent eternal things arise? They are. They exist.

Outside of religious lore, what does eternal really mean?

The infinite continuum into which events are interpolated.

The christians claim that jesus, himself a god, is the only beggoten son of god, another god,who is also co-god with the holy spirit, etc, in their voodoo arithmetic.
The point is that if god jesus is begotten, then why can't god almighty , also be begotten by some other unknown almightier almighty, and so on?

I leave that to the voodoo christians.

Deep Sight:

Please stop being ridiculous. Its really shocking the illogicalities and even outright falsities that you people are willing to spew forth simply in a bid to deny the existence of God.

The idea of nothingness has been the same from the dawn of time. How you can shamelessly attempt to claim that until the advent of our modern understanding of quantum physics and to most lay people, nothing actually comprised of undetected particles - is completely beqond me.

"Nothingness" has never "comprised" anything whatsoever: the word refers to what it indicates: i.e: no thing. Simple.

Only extreme dishonestly can push you to claim otherwise.

First of all, nothingness is a different concept from nothing. e.g Nothingness contains nothing and until recently, we thought that a vacuum also contained nothing but we now know better. How can the idea have been the same from the dawn of time when there was a time that people were debating on whether or not vacuums were even possible?

Why not simply accept that we're talking about different conceptions of "nothing" and leave it at that? If you see someone with a closed fist and you ask what they have in their hand, if the person says nothing, will you start complaining?

Deep Sight:
We are able to infer things even where a full understanding of their mechanisms may be beyond us. A full understanding of the human brain does not exist, and yet we can infer many things about it from observation and reason. We can infer that the frontal lobe originates thought, even when we cannot tell exactly by what mechanisms or exactly how. Just as a rough example. If I were to try another example, I would say that from observation we can infer that there was a big b@ng, even when none of us ever observed it. Nor do we know how or why it happened. But reason can lead us to infer that it happened. The point I am trying to make is that the fact that we do not see or understand certain things does not mean that some basic logical inferences cannot be made.

As such, we can logically infer that the physical arose from the non physical on account of these premises:

1. The premise of the big b@ng - i.e: that there was a beginning

The big bang is said to be the beginning of this universe. Whether or not there was a universe preceding it and all that is still unknown.

Deep Sight:
2. The premise that a beginning requires a cause

By cause are you referring to a mind or a mechanism?

Deep Sight:
3. The premise that anything that begins cannot be said to be eternal in the past

By begins are you talking about something being composed out of some pre-existing material or something spontaneously arriving from no pre-existing material?

Deep Sight:
4. The premise that matter is therefore not eternal in the past

We know this.

Deep Sight:
5. The premise that matter is therefore caused

We know this too but keep in mind that what we say caused this matter is also physical in nature.

Deep Sight:
6. The premise that nothing finite can be its own cause: thus matter cannot be caused by matter

Well there is energy.

Deep Sight:
7. The logical conclusive inference is that matter must be caused by something that is not matter: i.e: immaterial.

Energy is immaterial. Is energy God? If you think it is, I must say that it bears no resemblance to what most people would call God.

Deep Sight:



Are thoughts physical things?

Do they affect physical things?

This alone answers your question.

Thoughts have a physical basis and for them to influence anything, they must occur a physical entity. So it doesn't answer anything. If you wish to claim that your God is simply some free floating thinker, then how can it do anything physical without a physical extension?

Deep Sight:

This is a falsity. The concept of nothingness has never changed anywhere except in the minds of deluded goons such as Krauss.

Nothingness means no thing. Period.

So if someone says that there is nothing in an empty jar, do you start shouting that they're deluded?

Deep Sight:
This is a point in favour of that which I am saying: if we have figured out that there is no perfect vacuum anywhere, then Krauss's contradictory discourse collapses with that.

This is why I simply ask you to understand the point he is making before you start jumping around.

Deep Sight:
Even where, for the sake of argument, I was willing to say that God is physical (which I do not believe), no one responded to the points I set out and the thread I commenced.

https://www.nairaland.com/970734/contentions-idehn-existence-god-time

Well I see no point in arguing against a position that you do not hold.

Deep Sight:
Here are the exact words on your wiki page:

The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. When the energy of the universe is considered from a pseudo-tensor point of view, zero values are obtained in the resulting calculations.[1][2][3] The amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by the negative energy in the form of gravity

Now tell me exactly why the energy in the form of matter should be considered cancelled out by the energy in the form of gravity so as to arrive at zero - the absolute zero relevant to this discussion - namely - nothing.

Tell me, just tell me.

It's a false hypothesis, son.

It is because energy in the form of matter is considered as positive energy while energy in the form of gravity is considered negative energy. What absolute zero relevant to this discussion are you talking about? The one that doesn't exist?

Deep Sight:
Now, comming to your second link, answer is no, I do not understand such calculations: nor do I need to understand them once they are based on a wrong premise in relation to my argument. Remember that this discussion is about the possibility of something coming from nothing, and as such the only proper defnition of zero in relation to this discussion is total nothingness: which does not exist. As such, the definition of zero being used under the discourse of Stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor is NOT this absolute zero which is relevant to this discussion. This is why it is hopelessly misguided to refer to such as showing that "the universe may literaily pop up from nothingness" as Krauss does. I hope you understand this clearly.

You haven't actually said that they're wrong. You simply indicated that you didn't understand some parts of the premise.

You already admitted that the absolute zero you're talking about doesn't exist so what point are you actually making? I understand what I'm saying, I understand what Krauss is saying, I understand what the article says the question is whether you're able to actually tie these things together to make your point rather than simply pointing fingers.

All I ask is for you to address Krauss' statements in their appropriate context and make yours in its appropriate context.

Deep Sight:
For emphasis, I quote again from your second wiki-link:

In the theory of general relativity, a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor, such as the Landau–Lifshitz pseudotensor, is an extension of the non-gravitational stress–energy tensor which incorporates the energy-momentum of gravity. It allows the energy-momentum of a system of gravitating matter to be defined. In particular it allows the total of matter plus the gravitating energy-momentum to form a conserved current within the framework of general relativity, so that the total energy-momentum crossing the hypersurface (3-dimensional boundary) of any compact space-time hypervolume (4-dimensional submanifold) vanishes.

Please note the bold words above: this is not an equation that results in nothingness. It is an equation specific to the calculation of positive energy from matter and negative energy from gravity: this does not result in nothingness: and as such is NOT the zero relevant to this discussion: which would be absolute nothingness.

It is also critical that I point out to you that even with the Zero Universe Hypothesis, it is said that the cancelation equation results not necessarily in zero, but perhaps in negligible energy. Again from your first link -

A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.

I point this out just to show that even with the hypothetical model, an absolute zero is not definitively presumed!

Nevertheless this still has no impact on my argument: for as I mentioned above, the zero referred to, and relevant for this discussion, is absolute nothingness. Dear friend, absolute nothingness does no feature anywhere in any of these equations.

Finally I should point out to you that the supposed cancellation of material positive energy and gravitational negative energy is a net calculation. In other words you are speaking of a mathematical net zero, and not the zero which is relevant to this discussion - absolute zero.

You asked for why Krauss was pointing out that the energy of the universe was zero and I presented you with the complex reasons why.

Deep Sight:
I leave you with the words of Patrick R. Briney, PHD, in his debate on this matter regarding the existence of God from the First Law of Thermodynamics -

"Energy exists, and the known laws governing the natural universe show us that it is impossible for it to have originated naturally. The idea of a net-zero-energy universe is a highly speculative attempt to explain how energy exists without violating the FLT. But two things suggest this idea is wrong: 1) the conservation of nothing is nothing, and 2) supposed vacuum experiments are not absolute voids and therefore do not show something coming from nothing."

I was pleased to note that his point no (2) above is a point I have repeatedly made against you guys on this same issue.

The error here lies right on the first line. How does the claimant know this? it simply looks to me like an argument from ignorance. I think it is impossible for the known laws to have originated naturally so they must have originated supernaturally. (If the idea of the supernatural is even coherent.)

Then there is the final question of whether God is a "thing". If you say he is, then what sort of thing is it? In your attempt to describe it, please let us know how you know what you know about it while avoiding negative descriptions i.e apophasis.

Just laughable.

Deep Sight:
Just laughable.

Is if funny that you're mistaken? You're still welcome to say what you mean.