Thorham
-
Posts
533 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Thorham
-
-
27 minutes ago, zapatos said:
Except for these you mean...
Just my opinion. As we all know, it's peoples good right to disagree.
27 minutes ago, zapatos said:None of these statements show a willingness to see the other person's perspective.
I'm indeed quite unwilling if I completely, totally and utterly disagree with something. If that leads to mutual disagreement, well, that's fine with me, because...
29 minutes ago, zapatos said:You are coming across as the absolute authority.
... I'm absolutely not an authority. I just got to worked up about this stuff, that's all.
0 -
10 minutes ago, zapatos said:
You do realize you've been presenting yourself as just such an authority, don't you?
That's exactly what I wasn't doing. I was complaining about someone else whom I thought was doing that (which he wasn't) and how I thought that was a stupid idea. You see, if everyone just redefines words to mean whatever they want then we might as well call everything smurf.
0 -
5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
Doh, It was intended as a joke... 😣
Well, I did say I wasn't sure 🙂
0 -
19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
I could explain it to you, but I'm not sure where our relative understanding, coalesces...
Humor me.
0 -
5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:
Not even the person who first coined it?
Point taken.
6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:For instance, you're a "Thorhamanitist" I know what it means, do you?
I'm not exactly sure.
0 -
Okay, it appears to be a little different from what I thought. After watching the linked video above it seems that Krauss calls a lack of space, time, matter, energy and laws of physics nothing. He doesn't appear to be redefining anything (a lack of those mentioned things seems to be physically nothing indeed). Problem solved.
37 minutes ago, swansont said:You don’t get to tell physicists how to do physics.
I'm not. I'm complaining about redefining nothing to mean something, which is actually not what's happening here. My problem was that I thought Krauss was messing around with the meaning of nothing so he could use a click bait title for his book, which I don't like because it causes unnecessary confusion. Turns out that he didn't do that.
38 minutes ago, swansont said:And it doesn’t matter what linguists (or you) decide.
Yeah, it does matter sometimes. Not a single humanbeing is an absolute authority on what the meaning of words should be, so this kind of thing is certainly something that can and should be debated. Especially in this case.
0 -
2 minutes ago, beecee said:
I'm still waiting for your alternative explanation, and/or a refutation of the data that a universe from nothing [nothing being inherently unstable] and defined as the quantum foam, is not in the realms of possibility.
I have no problem with quantum foam, existing data, etc. I have a problem with redefining nothing to mean something. Now you have two words for 'something', and no word for 'nothing', and that makes no sense. Nothing and something are two specific concepts, and if the concept of nothing doesn't apply, use something else. If something looks like nothing, but it isn't, just stop calling it nothing instead of performing mental gymnastics to make nothing mean something.
If it was as simple as nothing being nothing in a context, such as 'There is nothing in that box over there.', then sure, there's no problem, even if I don't like it. It would just be casual speech, but I don't think that's what's happening here.
The notion that there has to be a scientific definition of nothing that's different from the philosophical absolute nothingness is flawed. In science, if it's not nothing don't call it nothing. It's literally that straightforward.
4 minutes ago, beecee said:Thorum
That's Thorham, thanks 👍
0 -
23 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:
it seems obvious to me that this is a figure of speech
The whole problem is that it's not.
0 -
4 hours ago, beecee said:
If the quantum foam is as basic and fundamental as one can ever achieve, its rather obvious it could be defined as "nothing"
Not as obvious as simply calling it what it is. If nothing and something both mean something, then why have the word nothing? This is one reason why this whole thing is ridiculous.
4 hours ago, beecee said:It also appears your use of "pop science" is obviously an attempt at derision of Krauss
I called his book pop science, not his hypothesis.
5 hours ago, beecee said:Redefining of a word? Surely not, they are redefined all the time!
Absolutely because of that. If nothing gets redefined to something, then why even keep the word at all? Nothing and something are opposites. The whole point is that they are not the same
5 hours ago, beecee said:Thought I would search how nothing has been and is now defined. Not as clear cut as some would have us believe.......
https://www.livescience.com/28132-what-is-nothing-physicists-debate.html
It's not as clear cut and dry as it should and indeed could be because people like to needlessly complicate things.
6 hours ago, zapatos said:Sometimes people are not going to agree with what you decide is the best way of doing things.
Sometimes people also like to needlessly complicate things by performing mental gymnastics in order to make something mean what it really, REALLY doesn't mean, and I'm not going to accept that without a fight, especially not when scientists do it. They should know better.
0 -
5 minutes ago, swansont said:
This is a physics discussion. Krauss can use physics terminology, or terminology applied in a physics context, rather than lay usage
No, he can't, because he just wants to be able to call his pop science book A universe from nothing. That's all there's to it. There's no scientific value at all in redefining the word nothing to mean something. He just blatantly ignores the philosophical meaning of the word nothing and it's utter rubbish.
6 minutes ago, beecee said:Afterall we imagined space as nothing at one time, and the majority probably still do.
And it's not, so you call it something.
9 minutes ago, beecee said:Words are redefined all the time
I don't think words as fundamental as nothing and something should be redefined.
Krauss is literally just word fucking for absolutely no good reason at all, and it causes confusion for no good reason at all. If something is something, just call it something. I don't understand why that's so difficult. Something is something and nothing is not something. Seems so easy.
0 -
28 minutes ago, studiot said:
So do you consider that 'nothing' has no properties whatsoever ?
Nothing simply means 'not something'.
15 minutes ago, beecee said:You seem to disaprove...so what do you suggest?
That we simply call it quantum foam and not nothing. Simple. A universe from quantum foam. What's the problem with that?
18 minutes ago, beecee said:Some science terminology can be confusing
Of course, but when people start to needlessly redefine a word then it becomes confusing for no good reason.
0 -
9 minutes ago, beecee said:
So as defined, the universe/space/time is the ultimate something, that resulted from nothing.
And I don't agree. Krauss doesn't get to decide what words mean. He's a physicist, not a linguist.
6 minutes ago, MigL said:I suggest we discuss the concepts, or any theories, not the terminology.
And how exactly can we do that when the terminology is confusing or just blatantly nonsensical (on purpose no less)?
0 -
18 minutes ago, beecee said:
The BB was a termed applied by Fred Hoyle, supposedly as a term of derision, and who pushed the Steady State hypothetical.
Wow, really? What a shame that name stuck.
18 minutes ago, beecee said:I probably agree, its a language usage problem, but the point Krauss makes remains. Perhaps the quantum foam is as fundamental as is possible to achieve and may actually be nothing from which the universe evolved. At that fundamental nature, it is imo easy to imagine it as nothing, the same as we once imagined space as nothing.
I understand, but this is still just messing around with language. If it's as fundamental as is possible then it's more like the ultimate something rather than nothing.
0 -
52 minutes ago, beecee said:
Again, what is proposed is that quantum foam is nothing, despite what our human understanding of the word is.
And that's exactly the problem with this. It's a language usage problem, namely deliberately calling something nothing while it's clearly something. It's ass backwards. If it's something just call it something. It's just like the big bang. It wasn't a bang and it wasn't big, so why is it called big bang? I have no problem with these ideas, it's not as if I have any better ones, but come on, something is nothing and a big bang that wasn't a bang and not big? These people need to take some English lessons!
26 minutes ago, zapatos said:That is not evidence. It's not even bad evidence. It's more like "because I said so".
It's a philosophical issue any way and I shouldn't have brought it up.
0 -
10 minutes ago, beecee said:
It just maybe nothing, despite our general understanding of nothing, which simply may need redefining. Afterall we once thought space was nothing. We were wrong.
Or perhaps not use the word nothing in science if you mean something?
10 minutes ago, beecee said:The universe/space/time isn't concerned about what we or anyone else may determine as click bait or spectacular.
Of course not, but humans most certainly do.
0 -
8 minutes ago, beecee said:
What I was trying to say, and what Krauss was saying, is that the quantum foam is nothing.
It's not nothing. This is just using the word nothing in the casual sense. Example: There's nothing in the closet, except air of course, and air isn't even remotely nothing.
A universe from nothing is the equivalent of click bait titles. A universe from something doesn't sound spectacular so you just use the word nothing in the casual sense.
4 hours ago, zapatos said:Evidence?
Here we are.
0 -
On 2/6/2021 at 9:46 PM, beecee said:
The thing is that we are here. And obviously ignoring the creationists myths, we, the universe evolved from somewhere. The basic fundamental quantum foam, may be as close to nothing as is possible, and from which when the appropriate fluctuation arose, evolved the universe/space/time that we are familiar with.
Close to nothing is still extremely far away from true nothingness. Ultimately something, what ever it is, must have always existed.
0 -
Not this universe from nothing nonsense again. You can't get something from nothing unless you redefine nothing to be something.
-1 -
Because it seems nonsense that something can come from absolute nothingness.
0 -
Absolutely. I don't pretend to be someone I'm not.
0 -
23 hours ago, mistermack said:
Not so much the silliness of it
Religion is sadly anything but simple, because it's an extremely effective control mechanism.
0 -
Of course you can believe in both god and evolution. You can believe anything you want. You could believe that invisible goblins made the universe out of magic pixie dust. That's how belief works: It allows anything.
1 -
On 7/25/2018 at 5:30 AM, Mallic said:
Because apparently anecdotal evidence is all but useless
It's only useless if it can't be repeated as many times as is necessary to get good data.
0 -
On 5/18/2018 at 8:31 PM, CharonY said:
... never realized there was a sequel. I thought Chaos strikes back was it..
You can check it out with DosBox if you still like games like DM.
0
How did we come from nowhere?
in Speculations
Posted
Thanks, and the same to you 🙂