DeepSight:


Assuming that if the universe had a purpose, you, little you, infinitesimal you, would know it, is beyond absurd.

Is it about the size of HellVictorinho or the capacity of his brain

A001:

This comment shows your understanding of Physics is shallow.

You need to read books written by prominent scientists on the subject of the universe arising from nothing, with Lawrence Krauss' A Universe from Nothing a good example of such books.

Some scientists and philosophers such as Einstein and Plato who said reality is an illusion didn't state that just to confuse people. It's just the truth.

Those prominent scientists were wrong.

A001:

Okay.

That's why reality is called an illusion: Some things exist which can't be seen with the naked eye and seem like what they're not (nothing) .

Since they exist, it's not an illusion.


That you can't see certain things doesn't mean it's an illusion.

A001:

You clearly don't understand my posts on this issue you've quoting. When something appears mysterious and seem like an empty space, it's right to call it nothing until you know specifically its nature or identity (what it's).

Please, read my earlier post on the subject again, slowly:

"By nothing, I mean something that exists but that can't be seen by us or doesn't have the physical kind of existence.

We only see an object that light particles (photons) from the sun bounces off into the retina of our eyes.

If the object is too tiny to bounce off photons from the sun into our eyes or it can't even bounce off sunlight photons at all, does that mean such is non-existent?

We simply call such an object or particle nothing as limited beings just as we see the space around us as empty space until it's observed under a powerful electron microscope and we discover our folly.

In spite of that, even the most powerful (electron) microscopes have their limits depending on the wavelength of an electron.

That means a scanning electron microscope, even with its ultra-high magnifying power, can't detect a particle with a wavelength smaller than electron such as a neutrino.

Thus, we call such a particle nothing."

You can't see it but you know it exists so don't call it nothing!!!!

johnydon22:
The movement of things that make up the universe are subject to physical laws. They all fall into that physical behavioral uniformity.

The movement of things that make up the universe literally allude to a pattern, otherwise known as the laws of physics. Referring to them really is you making my point.

You don't understand


I know that the universe is a pattern.

Amidst the pattern,
You have several things moving randomly or anyhow or disordely..


These movements that happen disordely are normal because they just happen .


It's like saying the madness is normal.

But the madness is not really normal.


It's just constant or it remains for as long as the universe exists.



Reality is more than madness .


It has no limit.



DeepSight,wirinet.

A001:

You clearly don't understand my posts on this issue you've quoting. When something appears mysterious and seem like an empty space, it's right to call it nothing until you know specifically its nature or identity (what it's).

Please, read my earlier post on the subject again, slowly:

"By nothing, I mean something that exists but that can't be seen by us or doesn't have the physical kind of existence.

You read what you have written slowly.
You say - "By nothing I mean something that exists but . . . "

If you cannot see the problem with this statement, I really am wasting my time.

We simply call such an object or particle nothing

Oh, you can call an object or particle nothing? ? ?
That's frankly comical.

This is exactly why I have no respect for the ludicrous postulations of Lawrence Krauss. Because, either as he knows or ought to know what the word "nothing" refers to in philosophical or existential discussions regarding the question "can something arise from nothing" - or "why something instead of nothing" - he comically picks a "something" - defines it and labels it as "nothing" and then proceeds from there.

Its nothing but sheer iidiocy and he has been rightly roasted in many debates and shows for just that.
In fact if you watch him discuss you will realize he is also not mentally stable.

as limited beings just as we see the space around us as empty space until it's observed under a powerful electron microscope and we discover our folly.

In spite of that, even the most powerful (electron) microscopes have their limits depending on the wavelength of an electron.

That means a scanning electron microscope, even with its ultra-high magnifying power, can't detect a particle with a wavelength smaller than electron such as a neutrino.

Thus, we call such a particle nothing."

You are just contradicting yourself.
Its time I save myself from bothering with this absurd conflation of concepts.
Enjoy.

HellVictorinho3:

Reality is more than madness .

Excusing your rambling responses, on this we must agree!

DeepSight:


You read what you have written slowly.
You say - "By nothing I mean something that exists but . . . "

If you cannot see the problem with this statement, I really am wasting my time.

You can stop quoting me. Unless you can say specifically the stuff constituting the origin of the Universe with proofs, don't mention me to engage in this sort of discussion.

Based on the current level of understanding of the Universe, I hold that notion, and what's seen as nothing changes with time.

Anyone familiar with the history of science will understand this simple fact.

HellVictorinho3:



You can't see it but you know it exists so don't call it nothing!!!!

Know what exists? Neutrino or what? If not for key advances in Particle Physics in the 20th and 21st centuries, many particles we know exist today would have been regarded as nothing or non-existent.

Still, much more particles and waves that could be in existence that we don't know exist still remain undiscovered till this moment.

In the near future, we'll discover them.

A001:

and what's seen as nothing changes with time.

This is incoherent absurdity.
You don't even pause to contemplate what the implications of nothingness changing are.
Nor does it help that you say "whats seen as nothing" - for that only infers the seers of such nothingness to be potential psychiatric patients.
Like Lawrenece Krauss.

No worries, enjoy your Krauss inspired paradise.
I will stop quoting you, at least on this subject of nothingness.

DeepSight:


This is incoherent absurdity.
No worries, enjoy your Krauss inspired paradise.
I will stop quoting you, at least on this subject of nothingness.

It's obvious you know very little about the history of science. If not, you won't find it difficult to understand a simple matter.

Stop quoting me to state whatever issues you have with Krauss.

One unknown entity on Nairaland is calling a successful and multi-award-winning scientist a first-class idiot. Lols. What a silly joke!

A001:

It's obvious you know very little about the history of science.

And you are completely ignorant of both science and logic.

You don't even pause to contemplate what the implications of nothingness changing are.
Nor does it help that you say "whats seen as nothing" - for that only infers the seers of such nothingness to be potential psychiatric patients.
Like Lawrence Krauss.

A001:

One unknown entity on Nairaland is calling a successful and multi-award-winning scientist a first-class idiot. Lols. What a silly joke!

Of course small and limited minds are prone to hero-worship: and ground their thoughts around appeals to authority.
It takes larger, freer and open minds to question even the so called acclaimed.

If Einstein and others didnt question Newtonian physics, you wouldnt be here rambling on about quantum physics would you? Is Newton not one of the most brilliant men ever?

Do people not have valid questions even against the postulations of some of the most acclaimed scientists? Do such acclaimed scientists not turn out to be wrong sometimes - oh you who know the history of science?

Lawrence Krauss' postulations on nothingness are sheer iidiocy, and if you are so star struck by him that you cannot think for yourself on something so self evident, that is your cup of tea. Do not expect that everyone else will engage in your worship of that re.tard.

DeepSight:


[s]And you are completely ignorant of both science and logic.

You don't even pause to contemplate what the implications of nothingness changing are.
Nor does it help that you say "whats seen as nothing" - for that only infers the seers of such nothingness to be potential psychiatric patients.
Like Lawrence Krauss. [/s]

You can crawl back into the hole you came out from and stop quoting me.

An unknown entity on Nairaland is calling a successful theoretical physicist a first-class idiot

One can only find nonentities like this on Nairaland.

DeepSight:


[s]Of course small and limited minds are prone to hero-worship: and ground their thoughts around appeals to authority.
It takes larger, freer and open minds to question even the so called acclaimed.

If Einstein and others didnt question Newtonian physics, you wouldnt be here rambling on about quantum physics would you? Is Newton not one of the most brilliant men ever?

Do people not have valid questions even against the postulations of some of the most acclaimed scientists? Do such acclaimed scientists not turn out to be wrong sometimes - oh you who know the history of science?

Lawrence Krauss' postulations on nothingness are sheer iidiocy, and if you are so star struck by him that you cannot think for yourself on something so self evident, that is your cup of tea. Do not expect that everyone else will engage in your worship of that re.tard.
[/s]

Your ill-informed opinion has been read and duly discarded.

Stop quoting my posts.

A001:

You can crawl back into the hole you came out from and stop quoting me.

An unknown entity on Nairaland is calling a successful theoretical physicist a first-class idiots

One can only find nonentities like this on Nairaland.

Enjoy your ignorance bro.
Its your life.
Or your nothingness.

DeepSight:


[s]Enjoy your ignorance bro.
Its your life.
Or your nothingness.[/s]

Too many low IQ members on Nairaland who can't understand simple statements written in simple English.

A001:

Too many low IQ members on Nairaland who can't understand simple statements written in simple English.

I see you are the one who has to resort to childish pictures.
Low IQ? You cant even retain a consistent concept of the word "nothingness" or "nothing."

How can we expect you to understand "something?"

You actually write that "objects and particles" are nothing, and expect to be taken seriously, simply because you mention the name of one clown who is "acclaimed" as a scientist.
Go and sleep my brother.

Capital olodo.

Better to ignore some comments by some nonentities on this forum.

DeepSight:


I see you are the one who has to resort to childish pictures.
Low IQ? You cant even retain a consistent concept of the word "nothingness" or "nothing."

How can we expect you to understand "something?"

You actually write that "objects and particles" are nothing, and expect to be taken seriously, simply because you mention the name of one clown who is "acclaimed" as a scientist.
Go and sleep my brother.

Capital olodo.

A001:

Too many low IQ members on Nairaland who can't understand simple statements written in simple English.

You guys cut it out. Don't spoil this thread. We have been conducting ourselves creditably before now. Don't let us degenerate into insults and intolerance just because of differences in beliefs and opinions like our theist counterparts.

wirinet:



You guys cut it out. Don't spoil this thread. We have been conducting ourselves creditably before now. Don't let us degenerate into insults and intolerance just because of differences in beliefs and opinions like our theist counterparts.

Pardon me old friend. I have a long standing irritation with the st.upidity of Lawrence Krauss.
So reading from one who worships him was always bound to scratch a nerve.

For some people, the height of intelligence and enlightenment simply means swallowing the words of "acclaimed scientists." Even against the most elementary and most obvious logic. We are familiar with this sort of pedestrian and even slavish rigidity in thought.

PS: I don't think its fair to suggest that intolerance is limited to theists.
Many atheists are extremely intolerant in the modern world. In fact its now a fad for such persons to refer to or regard any person who happens to believe in God, or even in spirituality, or even in the existence of the immaterial - as some sort of ignorant, backward or idiiotic person.

Even as an agnostic myself, even if agnostic-deist - I do not take such a position.

DeepSight:


Pardon me old friend. I have a long standing irritation with the st.upidity of Lawrence Krauss.
So reading from one who worships him was always bound to scratch a nerve.

For some people, the height of intelligence and enlightenment simply means swallowing the words of "acclaimed scientists." Even against the most elementary and most obvious logic. We are familiar with this sort of pedestrian and even slavish rigidity in thought.

PS: I don't think its fair to suggest that intolerance is limited to theists.
Many atheists are extremely intolerant in the modern world. In fact its now a fad for such persons to refer to or regard any person who happens to believe in God, or even in spirituality, or even in the existence of the immaterial - as some sort of ignorant, backward or idiiotic person.

Even as an agnostic myself, even if agnostic-deist - I do not take such a position.

Aside from the issue of a universe from nothing what is your beef with Krauss?

wirinet:




You guys cut it out. Don't spoil this thread. We have been conducting ourselves creditably before now. Don't let us degenerate into insults and intolerance just because of differences in beliefs and opinions like our theist counterparts.

The guy is better ignored.

When a person has a single-digit IQ, he would regard my citing of the book of the theoretical physicist as worshipping him.

Hating on someone that doesn't even know you exist. Isn't that the height of stupidity?

Yet, if you've the opportunity to meet eminent personalities like Kraus who is a leader in his field, you can never say all this tripe to his face.

Some nonentities on Nairaland are irredeemably stupid and better ignored.

LordReed:


Aside from the issue of a universe from nothing what is your beef with Krauss?

It primarily centres around that (and some consequential incongruities), but do note that that alone is significant enough. And that is because the core existential questions - "why something instead of nothing" and "can something arise from nothing" - are probably the most central and important questions in existential thought throughout the ages. They are therefore not questions to be approached either lightly or flippantly - and certainly not with an egregious degree of dishonesty, dis-ingenuity or blatant mendacity and incongruity.

When ancient peoples came up with the concept of zero, they knew they were referring to the absence of any quantity or element whatsoever. When the existential question "can something arise from nothing" is asked, we also know that by nothing, we mean no-thing whatsoever. For anyone to address that very question by pointing to something - anything - an existent quantity or element of any kind, and then defining that thing as "nothing" in order to answer this question is the height of ridiculousness. That that person is "acclaimed" or "eminent" does nothing whatsoever to redeem the ludicrous fallacy at play here. Not even celebration by fellow "intellectuals" does anything to bequeath logic into the illogical. And you can imagine just how much worse it is, just how cringe-worthy, when someone comes along and says that if we cannot observe a thing, it is justified to say that it is nothing. This sort of statement, in an age long after the invention of the microscope.

As for Krauss, he even goes so far as to say that there are different types of "nothing."

Pray tell, what may distinguish one type of nothingness from another type, in existential terms? The very fact that there exists anything to point to as a distinction already admits the existence of something.

He, and those who parrot his views (and there are many - sadly even among people I admire such as the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins), look us straight in the face and say that objects are "nothing," They actually say that things are nothing and expect a silent worshipful superstitious awe to follow. In truth, they could easily be more honest and simply look for another word for the objects they wish to insist are nothing. No amount of posturing, no amount of books, no amount of acclaim, and no amount of eminence will ever render an existent thing "nothing."

Not in physics and not in any other discipline.

Its nothing but a very bad joke: alas we live in a world in which anything that drops from the mouth of a scientist is taken with the very same irrational superstitious awe with which religious people often cling to the words of their prophets, leaders and priests. This is something to take note of, because genuinely free scientific inquiry is often endangered in a world in which there are professors in many disciplines, who are denied tenure or office, and who are "excommunicated" for daring to hold different views from those held by their colleagues of the mainstream. Indeed, many academics now privately admit that they dare not express some of their true views publicly for fear of this sort of "excommunication." Most scientists will not dare raise any question today against the Theory of Evolution for example, even when there are genuine scientific questions to ponder.

This can only remind one of Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei.

HellVictorinho3:



Is it about the size of HellVictorinho or the capacity of his brain

Actually it can be. How well can an ant understand the purpose of a solar panel?

Now how would you understand the purpose of the cosmos if there is one?

DeepSight:


It primarily centres around that (and some consequential incongruities), but do note that that alone is significant enough. And that is because the core existential questions - "why something instead of nothing" and "can something arise from nothing" - are probably the most central and important questions in existential thought throughout the ages. They are therefore not questions to be approached either lightly or flippantly - and certainly not with an egregious degree of dishonesty, dis-ingenuity or blatant mendacity and incongruity.

When ancient peoples came up with the concept of zero, they knew they were referring to the absence of any quantity or element whatsoever. When the existential question "can something arise from nothing" is asked, we also know that by nothing, we mean no-thing whatsoever. For anyone to address that very question by pointing to something - anything - an existent quantity or element of any kind, and then defining that thing as "nothing" in order to answer this question is the height of ridiculousness. That that person is "acclaimed" or "eminent" does nothing whatsoever to redeem the ludicrous fallacy at play here. Not even celebration by fellow "intellectuals" does anything to bequeath logic into the illogical. And you can imagine just how much worse it is, just how cringeworthy, when someone comes along and says that if we cannot observe a thing, it is justified to say that it is nothing. This sort, of statement, in an age long after the invention of the microscope.

As for Krauss, he even goes so far as to say that there are different types of "nothing."

Pray tell, what may distinguish one type of nothingness from another type, in existential terms? The very fact that there exists anything to point to as a distinction already admits the existence of something.

He, and those who parrot his views (and there are many - sadly even among people I admire such as the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins), look us straight in the face and say that objects are "nothing," They actually say that things are nothing and expect a silent worshipful superstitious awe to follow. In truth, they could easily be more honest and simply look for another word for the objects they wish to insist are nothing. No amount of posturing, no amount of books, no amount of acclaim, and no amount of eminence will ever render an existent thing "nothing."

Not in physics and not in any other discipline.

Its nothing but a very bad joke: alas we live in a world in which anything that drops from the mouth of a scientist is taken with the very same irrational superstitious awe with which religious people often cling to the words of their prophets, leaders and priests. This is something to take note of, because genuinely free scientific inquiry is often endangered in a world in which there are professors in many disciplines, who are denied tenure or office, and who are "excommunicated" for daring to hold different views from those held by their colleagues of the mainstream. Indeed, many academics now privately admit that they dare not express some of their true views publicly for fear of this sort of "excommunication." Most scientists will not dare raise any question today against the Theory of Evolution for example, even when there are genuine scientific questions to ponder.

This can only remind one of Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei.

Yeah you aren't the first to call out Krauss for his use of words in a seemly disingenious way. I understand his argument and agree with most of it but I also understand why people get angry with him.

A001:

Know what exists? Neutrino or what? If not for key advances in Particle Physics in the 20th and 21st centuries, many particles we know exist today would have been regarded as nothing or non-existent.

Still, much more particles and waves that could be in existence that we don't know exist still remain undiscovered till this moment.

In the near future, we'll discover them.

You know something at least!!!!

Stop using the case of what you don't know in this thread!!!!!

johnydon22:


Actually it can be. How well can an ant understand the purpose of a solar panel?

Now how would you understand the purpose of the cosmos if there is one?

The size of HellVictorinho doesn't affect the capacity of his brain!!!!


Don't compare me to ants- an abomination!!


I would understand the purpose the same way I would understand anything else..



The purpose can't be special.

DeepSight:


It primarily centres around that (and some consequential incongruities), but do note that that alone is significant enough. And that is because the core existential questions - "why something instead of nothing" and "can something arise from nothing" - are probably the most central and important questions in existential thought throughout the ages. They are therefore not questions to be approached either lightly or flippantly - and certainly not with an egregious degree of dishonesty, dis-ingenuity or blatant mendacity and incongruity.

When ancient peoples came up with the concept of zero, they knew they were referring to the absence of any quantity or element whatsoever. When the existential question "can something arise from nothing" is asked, we also know that by nothing, we mean no-thing whatsoever. For anyone to address that very question by pointing to something - anything - an existent quantity or element of any kind, and then defining that thing as "nothing" in order to answer this question is the height of ridiculousness. That that person is "acclaimed" or "eminent" does nothing whatsoever to redeem the ludicrous fallacy at play here. Not even celebration by fellow "intellectuals" does anything to bequeath logic into the illogical. And you can imagine just how much worse it is, just how cringe-worthy, when someone comes along and says that if we cannot observe a thing, it is justified to say that it is nothing. This sort of statement, in an age long after the invention of the microscope.

As for Krauss, he even goes so far as to say that there are different types of "nothing."

Pray tell, what may distinguish one type of nothingness from another type, in existential terms? The very fact that there exists anything to point to as a distinction already admits the existence of something.

He, and those who parrot his views (and there are many - sadly even among people I admire such as the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins), look us straight in the face and say that objects are "nothing," They actually say that things are nothing and expect a silent worshipful superstitious awe to follow. In truth, they could easily be more honest and simply look for another word for the objects they wish to insist are nothing. No amount of posturing, no amount of books, no amount of acclaim, and no amount of eminence will ever render an existent thing "nothing."

Not in physics and not in any other discipline.

Its nothing but a very bad joke: alas we live in a world in which anything that drops from the mouth of a scientist is taken with the very same irrational superstitious awe with which religious people often cling to the words of their prophets, leaders and priests. This is something to take note of, because genuinely free scientific inquiry is often endangered in a world in which there are professors in many disciplines, who are denied tenure or office, and who are "excommunicated" for daring to hold different views from those held by their colleagues of the mainstream. Indeed, many academics now privately admit that they dare not express some of their true views publicly for fear of this sort of "excommunication." Most scientists will not dare raise any question today against the Theory of Evolution for example, even when there are genuine scientific questions to ponder.

This can only remind one of Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei.

Can you help my dad or my brother?

A001:

You can crawl back into the hole you came out from and stop quoting me.

An unknown entity on Nairaland is calling a successful theoretical physicist a first-class idiot

One can only find nonentities like this on Nairaland.

Krauss is not a reason why you should do these things.


Can you still find something in your heart towards helping my dad or brother?

It's a serious matter.


Don't let the name Krauss stop you from being generous.


Remember that we're all humans.


On behalf of my brother/dad,
Please?

HellVictorinho3:



Krauss is not a reason why you should do these things.


Can you still find something in your heart towards helping my dad or brother?

It's a serious matter.


Don't let the name Krauss stop you from being generous.


Remember that we're all humans.


On behalf of my brother/dad,
Please?

I'm sorry I can't be of help at this moment. Hopefully, I will be able to soon.

A001:

I'm sorry I can't be of help at this moment. Hopefully, I will be able to soon.

Noted.


Hopefully,my brother doesn't die in the prison.


When you're able , let me know.

I will tell you if my brother's still alive.