beecee

But zero does not mean the same thing as nothing. Zero is a number while nothing is something that in my opinion has yet to be defined accurately.....eg: Is the vacuum of space nothing:No....I have said it elsewhere that one's definition of nothing, sometimes can be compromised by one's specific beliefs. Are quantum fluctuations nothing? Remembering of course that quantum fluctuations occurred before spacetime [as we know them] came into existence. Maths by the way, while being an abstract quantity, is simply the language of physics/science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy Can I add to my previous post........ Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle would be relevant in my opinion, and remembering that there is a limit to the precision and accuracy with which two aspects of the physical properties of any particle, can be known.

Like I have said a few times now, perhaps one's definition of reality needs to be looked at. No they certainly are not as yet testable, and he openly says that as I did in the past. The rest of your opinionated claims re Krauss, are wrong in my opinion....He is simply showing how invalid the ID argument is. The fact is, his hypothetical model is somewhat supported in quantum mechanics, and much of that discipline does stand up to scrutiny. He also has gained a few enemies of late with his rather critical and out spoken view on Philosophy today and its usefullness or lack of.

Perhaps our definition of nothing needs looking at..... https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

I'm no philosopher...nor am I a scientist...I actually see philosophy as a foundation corner stone for science, reflections on how we live, and sometimes useless musings........ Perhaps some Philosophers of late are somewhat disgruntled and annoyed at the apparent recent "put downs" of Philosophy by people such as Lawrence Krauss. Science on the other hand is generally seen as a more "hands on approach" and attempts to describe the universe around us with models that match observations,successfully make predictions, and models accordingly......as observations improve, scientific theories and approximations are extended upon with new more encompassing models. Reality and pure truth is not really the goal from what I understand, but obviously if those models hit upon the truth and reality of the universe, then all well and good. Science is a discipline in eternal progress. I will conclude with a couple of quotes... Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds. Attributed to Richard Feynman (1918-88) U.S. Physicist. Nobel Prize 1965. Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. Henry Louis Mencken. (1880-1956). Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks. Knopf, 1956. Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists. Richard Feynman And one attributed to Einstein: Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. I am unable to vouch for the authenticity of those quotes and musings but there are many more here..... https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sciquote.htm

Not at all..... Supernaturalistic/s and/or any form of ID is strictly non scientific, and is in reality a senseless illogical argument. As Carl Sagan says...... In reality only one of two scientific answers can ever really be possible....... The Universe [and as an extension , intelligence and consciousness] arose from nothing via quantum potential, or the universe is infinite. I prefer the former.

Here's my Greek Angel again and some C+W and unbelievable rendition of Franz Schubert's Nocturne "Only Time will tell" And another song made famous in the Movie that starred Humphrey Bogart, and Ingrid Bergman "Cassablanca" Children of the Stars: Nana Mouskouri and the Athenians:

Science is a discipline in eternal progress. Theories are formulated to explain observation and experimental results. Theories do grow in certainty over time, and as they continue to successfully predict and explain observational data. While that continues, scientists then proceed under the assumption that it is correct: I see that aligning with common sense and logic. Philosophy imo lays down the ground rules for science. Science is the hands on approach. Some great science and philosophy quotes here....... https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sciquote.htm What I will say is that if it weren't for science, we would still be swinging in the trees.

I highlighted one word in post 174......"Assuming" And that was In reply to your incorrect statement that WIKI talks about it "like an accepted fact".

And so far the BB, and GR have done OK....... But by the same token, most any young up and coming physicist, would dearly love to show that Einstein's work was limited and to find a valid model that extended beyond the BB and GR: In fact they are trying to do this everyday.

Until we have a better model that predicts more accurately, and matches observations more closely, and explains the anomalies that require DE and DM without invoking the same, then it is the best we have.

I don't believe WIKI does talk about it like an accepted fact. Both DM and DE are "probable explanations" to explain some anomalies in the standard model. If the standard model is correct, then certainly we need DE [whatever that may be] to explain accelerated expansion, and we need DM to explain anomalies in observed rotational curves of galaxies. Although as yet the exact nature of DE and DM is still a mystery, it does not invalidate the overall large scale picture of the present day standard model, which still aligns with plenty of observational and experimental evidence. Are they wrong? That as yet remains to be seen.

Probably to explain the observed acceleration in the expansion rate? I thought that was common knowledge, Let me sum it up for you in an extract from a reply I received from a Professor Isi from the aLIGO laboratory......... "This is because natural language is too ambiguous to express formal statements: GR (as every other physical theory) is a mathematical framework and we need mathematics to discuss it properly. This is evident when you consider how both quantum mechanics and special relativity are full of paradoxes that seem to point to contradictions that go away when expressed mathematically. Paradoxes point to the inadequacies of our intuitions, not to those of the theory".

And you would be wrong. Science simply constructs models that match what we observe and the result of our experiments as close as possible...Or if you like, as close to reality as possible. These models and theories grow in certainty over time, and as they continue to successfully predict, and continue to match new observations. This so called deeper reality you are talking about may not exist, and may be unobtainable anyway: If science does happen to hit upon it, then all well and good. Speaking and searching for that is philosophy, plain and simple.

And how or why does mass/energy alter the geometry of flat spacetime. My mind wanders to one of the greatest experiments on Earth being conducted now at the LHC and the "Higgs particle" and Higgs field......I'm fairly raw on knowldege of the Higgs particle and field, but hypothetically, could this be why mass/energy warps spacetime? I hope this isn't sidetracking, but I'm attracted to the possible "Superforce", when all the forces were united just after the BB with the extremely high energy levels existent at that time. Is there a possible connection between the Higgs and associated field, and the Superforce and graviton? I know we havn't yet achieved a QGT, but there does seem to be some evidence as to why the aforementioned hypotheticals maybe valid....

Shouldn't we be calling it spacetime? "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality". Hermann Minkowski My own view on this is that space, time, spacetime, while certainly not physical, are real....just as a magnetic field is real. Space is what stops everything from being together. Time is what stops everything from happening together. Spacetime is the unified multi-dimensional framework within which we locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light does not vary with the motion of the emitter or the observer. Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, irrespective of their relative motion. Each frame of reference when considered separately, sees space and time differently, but spacetime is invariant. Spacetime is geometry. In GR gravity is described in terms of curvature of spacetime. Space, time, spacetime while being real, are not made of anything.....space and time, "as we know them" came into existence at the BB. Anyone see anything wrong with those definitions?

Yup....Alex Filippenko was one, and I suspect many others...... https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

No one is imposing anything on anyone, other then the application of the scientific method. While we all certainly can be "scientists" by adhering to the scientific method, the lack of "proper learning" and ignorance of the laws of physics, may lead some of us normal lay folk up the proverbial garden path, ignorant of science and the scientific method and embracing "superstition" instead. As Professor Krauss intimated, the Philosophy of science, while indispensable many centuries ago, and still the basis of the scientific method, seems now to have reached a stalemate so to speak. The "reality" or "truth" as I have said, maybe unobtainable, if it really at all exists. You, the Oak tree, Me, are star stuff as the great educator Carl Sagan said many times. That star stuff can be traced back to our first fundamentals and even spacetime. Here is a nice little video explaining the "nothing" concept and the Universe arising from that same nothing...the video is only a few short minutes and is about half way down the page: Other appropriate and relevant articles on the same page.............. https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/reality/

To add to what I said above, here is a lengthy interview with Lawrence Krauss on the criticism by Philosophers of his book, and his elaboration of his view on science, philosophy, reality/nothing........ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-consolation-of-philos/ A real good read.

I generally try and avoid pure philosophical takes on life, the universe and everything, but what the heck.... A few quotes I have come across in my time......... 'Science is the systematic classification of experience" "Science is the antidote to the poison of superstition" "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know." "Science is not belief, but the will to find out" I see those quotes as summing up the discipline of science adequately. My own addition is that science is a discipline in continued progress. Science is not interested in reality per se, but to explain the universe around us by the construction of models: If by chance one of those models hits on this "reality"or "truth" then all well and good. On Philosophy I am generally far more ignorant: but I am aware of another quote attributed to Richard Feynman...it went something like this.... "Scientists are explorers: Philosophers are tourists" Feynman was generally dismissive of pure philosophical thought....... Someone [obviously a philosopher enraged by Feynman's dismissiveness] describes Feynamn as follows........ https://philosophynow.org/issues/114/Richard_Feynmans_Philosophy_of_Science Ben Trubody finds that philosophy-phobic physicist Feynman is an unacknowledged philosopher of science. "Richard Feynman (1918-88) was one of the greatest physicists of the twentieth century, contributing, among other things, to Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED), for which he won a Nobel Prize. His popular portrayal is of a buffooning genius with a preference for no-nonsense thinking – the sort that by his reckoning seemed in short supply within philosophy. He is noted, and quoted, for his dislike of philosophy, and in particular of the philosophy of science. Any quick trawl of the Internet will bring up quotes attributed to him on the absurdities of philosophy, no doubt informed by his brief flirtation with it at Princeton. Feynman would parody what he saw as ‘dopey’ exercises in linguistic sophistry. As he remarks in a famous lecture series, “We can’t define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers… one saying to the other: you don’t know what you are talking about! The second one says: what do you mean by ‘talking’? What do you mean by ‘you’? What do you mean by ‘know’?” (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, 1963)." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hold onto Feynman's views basically, and in my own amateurish way see science is the top rung of a ladder, leading up from religion and philosophy.....truth and reality I see as incidental and maybe unknowable at the depths that philosophical jargon go on about and as illustrated by Richard Feynman. Apologies to all philosophers out there......

ELVIS PRESLEY With The ROYAL PHILHARMONIC ORCHESTRA The Wonder Of You CD Andre Rieu & Carmen Monarcha - O Mio Babbino Caro

Great! If I'm not mistaken, that's from a concert in LA: I have it also on cd. Zubhan Metha being the conductor

The following is a track from a new cd I have purchased of the King and a lesser known German singer named Helene Fischer, backed by the London Symphony Orchestra. Wow!!! Wonderful!!!!

The following was an Andre Rieu concert I attended in Melbourne 2008....... A beautiful Aussie Angel singing an old Australian favourite about Botany Bay, where I live on the shores of...... Enjoy! You don't believe in Angels???? Here's another of the Greek variety....... One of the biggest selling female recording artists ever......and didn't need to get here gear off to achieve it!