ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my library, where I collect information and present arguments developed by myself that lead, in my view, to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation for the origin of the physical world.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Krauss - a universe from nothing

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Krauss - a universe from nothing Empty Krauss - a universe from nothing Fri 18 Aug 2017 - 19:34

Otangelo


Admin

Krauss - a universe from nothing

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2594-krauss-a-universe-from-nothing

Krauss: Lack of comfort means we are on the threshold of new insights. Surely, invoking "God" to avoid difficult questions of " how " is merely intellectually lazy.

Answer: Not at all. In the quest of origins, ALL possible mechanisms need to be scrutinized and put on the table and compared one to the other. In regard of origins, its an easy play. We have basically just TWO possible mechanisms to explain our origins: Either there was a conscious intelligent mind beyond the universe, or there was not.

John Lennox:
There are not many options. Essentially, just two. Either human intelligence owes its origin to mindless matter, or there is a Creator. It's strange that some people claim that all it is their intelligence that leads to prefer the first to the second.

Any proposal falls in either one, or the other category. We cannot give us the luxury to brandmark the God hypothesis a priori " intellectually lazy ". Why ?!! Just because you don't like the idea, and try to poke holes in this possible option? The best methodology to make meaningful inferences and conclude the best, most accurate world view is based on the current wealth of knowledge of operational and historical sciences, philosophy, and theism. Disposition to analyze the evidence as much honest and unbiased as possible, permitting it to lead wherever it is.  An unbiased starting point for inquiry of world views and explanations of origins is essential in order to come as close as possible to gain a realistic understanding of reality that includes physics and metaphysics. That means proper understanding of science, philosophical and theological explanations and searching for truth without eliminating possible theistic implications a priori.

Krauss: When it comes to understanding how our universe evolves, religion and theology have been at best irrelevant.

Answer: Religion, Philosophy, and theology ARE relevant when it comes to figure out quests of origins. And that includes the metaphysical question about the origin of the Universe. Science can at best explain us how things work, and up to a limited degree, how things MIGHT have come to be, but it cannot deal with questions beyond the observable universe.

Krauss: They often muddy the waters, for example, by focusing on questions of nothingness without providing any definition of the term based on empirical evidence.

The definition does not require much brainpower to be elaborated or defined: Nothing is simply the absence of any thing.  Wiki : Nothing is a concept denoting the absence of something, and is associated with nothingness. the state of nonexistence .

Krauss: Indeed, the immediate motivation for writing this book now is aprofound discovery about the universe that has driven my own scientific research for most of the past three decades and that has resulted in the startling conclusion that most of the energy in the universe resides in some mysterious, now inexplicable form permeating all of empty space. It is not an understatement to say that this discovery has changed the playing field of modern cosmology. For one thing, this discovery has produced remarkable new support for the idea that our universe arose from precisely nothing.

Answer: If we define nothing as the absence of anything, then the assertion that the universe arose from precisely nothing is hogwash and pure irrational nonsense. Nothing is the absence of anything and has no properties, not potentiality, it can't change the state of nothingness. That's OBVIOUS to any average intelligent mind.

Krauss: Guth realized that, as the universe itself cooled with the Big Bang expansion, the configuration of matter and radiation in the expanding universe might have gotten "stuck" in some metastable state for a while until ultimately, as the universe cooled further, this configuration then suddenly underwent a phase transition to the energetically preferred ground state of matter and radiation. The energy stored in the " false vacuum" configuration of the universe before the phase transition completed-the " latent heat" of the universe, if you will-could dramatically affect the expansion of the universe during the period before the transition. The false vacuum energy would behave just like that represented by a cosmological constant because it would act like an energy permeating empty space. This would cause the expansion of the universe at the time to speed up ever faster and faster. Eventually, what would become our observable universe would start to grow faster than the speed of light. This is allowed in general relativity, even though it seems to violate Einstein ' s special relativity, which says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But one has to be like a lawyer and parse this a little more carefully. Special relativity says nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light. But space itself can do whatever the heck it wants , at least in general relativity. And as space expands, it can carry distant obj ects, which are at rest in the space where they are sitting, apart from one another at superluminal speeds.

Answer: sounds smart, educated and sciency. But to be honest, i don't understand anything about this blaaaab.

Krauss: As I have described already, the laws of quantum mechanics imply that, on very small scales, for very short times, empty space can appear to be a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles and fields wildly
fluctuating in magnitude. These " quantum fluctuations" may be important for determining the character of protons and atoms, but generally they are invisible on larger scales, which is one of the reasons why they appear so unnatural to us . However, during inflation, these quantum fluctuations can determine when what would otherwise be different small regions of space end their period of exponential expansion. As different regions stop inflating at slightly (microscopically) different times, the density of matter and radiation that results when the false vacuum energy gets released as heat energy in these different regions is slightly different in each one. The pattern of density fluctuations that result after inflation arising, I should stress , from the quantum fluctuations in otherwise empty space-turns out to be precisely in agreement with the observed pattern of cold spots and hot spots on large
scales in the cosmic microwave background radiation. While consistency is not proof, of course, there is an increasing view among cosmologists that, once again, if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.

And if inflation indeed is responsible for all the small fluctuations in the density of matter and radiation that would later result in the gravitational collapse of matter into galaxies and stars and planets
and people, then it can be truly said that we all are here today because of quantum fluctuations in what is essentially nothing.


Answer: This is probably the essence or core assertion of the book, and essentialy makes as much sense as a quacking duck :=P .

Krauss: If we are all stardust, as I have written, it is also true , if inflation happened, that we all, literally, emerged from quantum nothingness. After all, in such a universe, space expands exponentially, so that if the density of energy remains the same, the total energy within any region will grow as the volume of the region grows . What happened to the conservation of energy? This is an example of something that Guth coined as the ultimate "free lunch. " Including the effects of gravity in thinking about the universe allows objects to have-amazingly -"negative " as well as " positive" energy. This facet of gravity allows for the possibility that positive energy stuff, like matter and radiation, can be complemented by negative energy configurations that just balance the energy of the created positive energy stuff. In so doing, gravity can start out with an empty universe-and end up with a filled one.

The net energy of the universe is zero

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-time-and-the-origin-of-the-universe

I have heard scientists say that if the net energy of the universe is zero, then the universe need not have a cause of its beginning to exist because nothing really exists, so that we do not have the absurdity of something’s coming from nothing. This attempt to draw metaphysical implications from the zero net energy hypothesis is a bad joke. It’s like saying that if your debts and your assets exactly cancel each other out, so that your net worth is zero, then there is no cause of your current financial condition. The suggestion that nothing exists is absurd. Not only do I undeniably exist, but according to the hypothesis the positive and negative energy exist. So as Christopher Isham, Britain’s premier quantum cosmologist, points out, there still needs to be “ontic seeding” to create the positive and negative energy in the first place. "Net energy is zero" is what is called a construct. It's like "the average family with 2.4 children". It's not an actual object you can point to, but something you get when you run the calculations for positive and negative elements. Do you know what you have when you have positive and negative elements? Elements. That's not nothing, that's something. Something that 1) doesn't have to exist and 2) logically cannot exist eternally. So we're back to the same question. If non-physical causation is a non-starter for you, either offer an explanation that's physical that doesn't suffer from those problems of offer an explanation as to why non-physical explanations are so repulsive. for someone who does not have an a priori commitment to the Big Bang (and inflation theory), it is not at all clear that the universe’s total energy would be exactly zero. In fact, it seems extremely unlikely.

Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry 

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1935-matter-antimatter-asymmetry

Quarks and anti-quarks form via matter-antimatter pair production. Because of their nature, these particles instantly annihilate each other. However, during the Big Bang, a slight asymmetry in this pair production resulted in approximately 1 extra particle of matter for every 10 billion produced. It turns out that this 1 in 10 billion ratio of “leftover particles” happens to be the exact amount of mass necessary for the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets. As much as 2 in 10 billion, and the universe would have just been filled with black holes. As little as 0.5 in 10 billion, and there wouldn’t have been enough density for galaxies to form.

The matter-antimatter asymmetry problem 
Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter.

Krauss: The answer to the ancient question "Why is there something rather than nothing? " would be that "nothing" is unstable .

haha.

Krauss - a universe from nothing Nothin10

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

2Krauss - a universe from nothing Empty Re: Krauss - a universe from nothing Mon 9 Dec 2019 - 19:18

Otangelo


Admin

Here, Krauss goes to the point to claim that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING could have created the universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghLSHorrcoQ

How the Universe came from "Nothing", Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discuss
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXGyesfHzew&t=1006s

And Dawkins, as his great friend,  swallows it as Sacro-Santo. Without making any objections. It would be funny, if not sad.

I mean, hey, that's irrational and absurd by all means.

Being can do something. Non-being cannot do something.
Something can do something. Nothing cannot do something.

Should be clear to anyone. But apparently, it isn't. Atheists ask me frequently to demonstrate that something cannot come from nothing.

Some foolish atheologists claim that we can know that inside the universe something cannot come from nothing, but outside the universe, we do not know the conditions.

Hey, it doesn't matter were, Nothing, and making it even more clear by defining it as ABSOLUTELY nothing, is the absence of being. ANYWHERE.

But even after many years, even today, atheists use Krauss arguments to defend the claim that the universe does not need a creator.

This video ridicules Krauss claims since it is deserved to be exposed, and since so many people actually parrot this nonsense, it has to be duly addressed.

Atheists claim to be on the rational high-ground, but this demonstrates that the contrary is the case.

Claim: The only thing worthy of ridicule is the strawman as the nothing Krauss talks about is not the same thing as nothing in a literal sense.
Reply: Krauss talks about an ABSOLUTE nothing, no space, no particles, no physical laws. The only meaning that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has is Nothing whatsoever. It is the opposite of Something, the opposite of being, the opposite of existence.  Nothing, Non-being, Non-existence. Krauss claims special pleading, by the attempt of giving an interpretation of nothing which actually becomes something. A quantum vacuum giving rise to quantum fluctuations is not nothing.   The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from? We are simply pushing  the issue of creation further back. Now it has to be explained how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into existence.

Why We Had to Change the Meaning of Nothing
http://nautil.us/blog/why-we-had-to-change-the-meaning-of-nothing?fbclid=IwAR20gYGHAmyiyCS5dkyDoi4Re3cj09nyAMK7V-LJA0UOk1K0xlGsbwvd_Vg

http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/ingenious-lawrence-m-krauss

Krauss: Nothing was never well defined anyway
Reply: There has never been doubt about the ontological meaning of nothing. It is the absence and contrary of something, being, existence

Krauss: The definition of the Bible is what we call empty space now. An eternal empty void.  
Reply: Nowhere does the Bible define nothing as empty space, or eternal empty void.

Krauss: I talk about the universe from nothing, I’m talking about a universe in which not only no particles, no radiation existed, but no space and no time existed in what is now our universe; all of that came into existence. 
Reply: What was the cause ?

Krauss: Now you can say well, did anything else exist? And I say well, that’s largely a semantic and maybe [a] useless question because it could be that there’s, it’s like, turtles all the way down
Reply: Thats actually the most relevant question. It could not be an infinite regress, otherwise, we would never reach this present moment in time. Why did Krauss not consider an eternal creator ?

Krauss: that there was other, that our universe arose out of a multiverse;
Reply:The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning
(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Krauss: or it could be that there was absolutely nothing—there was no space, no time, and space and time popped into existence.
Reply: That is the epitome of irrational nonsense. Absolutely nothing is the absence of anything, and can't do something. When the truth is dismissed, it is replaced with every kind of foolish claims.

What is so simple that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for the human mind to contemplate or reflect on *absolutely nothing*. IMPOSSIBLE. You can only say what it IS NOT. So as soon as you say ANYTHING about it, (it is unstable....it has properties...) you are stepping out of reality that the human mind is LOCKED into. To say anything positive about it is self refuting. This all equates that Krauss and all his fans are by default *absolutely detached* from reality. Only a real strong believer in evolution could be so insane.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

3Krauss - a universe from nothing Empty Re: Krauss - a universe from nothing Sun 14 Apr 2024 - 9:58

Otangelo


Admin

Virtual particles require a quantum vacuum. What was the cause of the vacuum?

Virtual particles, assuming they exist beyond theoretical constructs, do not materialize from absolute nothingness. The concept of a quantum vacuum differs significantly from the layperson's notion of a vacuum as an empty void. Instead, a quantum vacuum is a dynamic field characterized by constant energy fluctuations and activities, governed by the laws of physics. This environment allows for the temporary formation of virtual particles, which are essentially manifestations of the energy fluctuations within the vacuum. Therefore, the emergence of virtual particles is not an instance of phenomena coming into existence without a cause or from nothing. The quantum vacuum, with its inherent energy, serves as the backdrop for the occurrence of these particles. This leads to the deeper question of the quantum vacuum's origins, pushing the discussion of creation further back.
The interpretation of vacuum fluctuations to suggest spontaneous particle creation is misleading. Virtual particles don't simply pop into existence uncaused; they are transient outcomes of the energy oscillations within the vacuum. The quantum vacuum, far from being a state of nothingness, is a complex energy landscape that continuously generates and reabsorbs these particles. As such, the quantum vacuum and its fluctuations do not contravene the principle that everything with a beginning has a cause. In the realm of quantum mechanics, while certain physical conditions are necessary for quantum events like the appearance of particles, these conditions alone don't guarantee such events. The occurrence of a particle in a quantum vacuum might appear spontaneous, but it's underpinned by numerous necessary conditions, making it inaccurate to label these events as utterly causeless.

As Barrow and Tipler comment, "It is, of course, a bit of a misnomer to call the origin of the Universe in a bubble from a vacuum fluctuation "creation ex nihilo," for the state The vacuum system of quantum mechanics has a rich structure, which resides in a previously existing substrate of space-time, whether Minkowski or de Sitter space-time. Clearly, a true "creation ex nihilo" would be the spontaneous generation of everything - space- time, the vacuum of quantum mechanics, matter. - Sometime in the past "([1986], p. 441).

Krauss, in his discussions on the origins of the universe, introduced the notion that virtual particles—ephemeral entities that arise spontaneously from the quantum vacuum—would have played a pivotal role in sparking the Big Bang. This idea is grounded in the principles of quantum field theory, which posits that what we perceive as empty space is actually a seething cauldron of activity, where pairs of particles and antiparticles constantly pop into and out of existence. Virtual particles, despite their fleeting nature, are a fundamental aspect of the quantum vacuum and have real, observable effects, such as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift. Krauss suggests that these virtual particles, under certain conditions, could acquire enough energy to transition from their virtual state to become real particles. This process could potentially create a cascade effect, leading to a rapid expansion of space and the influx of energy that characterizes the Big Bang. The concept is tantalizing because it ties the birth of the universe to the inherent uncertainties and fluctuations of the quantum realm. It implies that the universe's origin would be a natural consequence of the laws of physics as we understand them, rather than requiring an external, transcendent cause. However, this proposition raises numerous questions and is subject to intense debate. One of the critical challenges is understanding the mechanism by which a quantum fluctuation in the vacuum could lead to a stable, expanding universe. Moreover, the transition from the quantum scale of virtual particles to the cosmological scale of the universe involves bridging vastly different domains of physics, a task that current theories are still grappling with.

Atheism is perfectly at home with all kinds of superstition, and irrational nonsense like “a universe from nothing”

1. It is claimed that virtual particles caused the Big Bang, and the universe into existence.
2. Virtual particles depend on a quantum vacuum, field, or bubble, which is an energy state in space. The energy in space is not nothing.
3. To have a quantum vacuum and field, the laws of physics are still there. That includes the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces. Spacetime is still there, governed by General Relativity. The fundamental constants are all still in place, all with the same values we observe them to have. And, perhaps most importantly, the zero-point energy of space is still there, and it's still at its current, positive, non-zero value. This is where the phrase, "a Universe from nothing" comes from. That's still a lot of something and not nothing at all. The origin of all these things still demands an explanation.
4. The quantum vacuum and field require an explanation of its existence. The first cause argument of God's existence is not refuted by claiming that virtual particles caused the Big Bang.


Claim: Metastable quantum field. Energy potential in the absense of matter. Quantum fluctuation condenses it into virtual particles of matter and antimatter. They created the Big Bang and our universe.
Reply: Physicists often use the term "nothingness" to refer to a highly restrictive and imaginative scenario where all identifiable quanta and fundamental constituents of matter and energy have been removed from the universe. However, even in this extremely sparse state, certain fundamental aspects of the physical world would still remain. The laws of physics, including the governing quantum fields and the principles of general relativity, would still exist. The fundamental constants that describe the universe would still have their observed values. Crucially, the zero-point energy of space, which gives rise to the phenomenon of virtual particles, would still be present. In this sense, the "nothingness" that physicists describe is not a complete void, devoid of all physical entities. Rather, it refers to a state where all identifiable particles and radiation have been removed, but the underlying framework of the universe, as described by the laws of physics, persists. This is the context in which the phrase "a Universe from nothing" is used. It refers to the idea that even in the absence of any discernible matter or energy, the inherent properties of space itself, as described by quantum field theory and general relativity, can give rise to the emergence of a universe.

The net energy of the universe is zero

The idea of leveraging the zero net energy concept to infer metaphysical conclusions is fundamentally flawed and misleading. It's analogous to arguing that if one's financial liabilities perfectly offset their assets, resulting in a net worth of zero, then their financial situation lacks a cause. This line of reasoning overlooks the existence of underlying factors that led to the balance of debts and assets. Similarly, the notion that the universe could emerge from 'nothing' because of a balance between positive and negative energies overlooks the existence of these energies themselves. As highlighted by Christopher Isham, a leading figure in quantum cosmology, the presence of positive and negative energies necessitates an initial "ontic seeding" or an originating cause that brought these energies into being. The concept of 'net energy being zero' is a mathematical construct, much like the statistical notion of 'the average family having 2.4 children.' It doesn't point to a tangible reality but is a result of aggregating and balancing different entities. When we talk about positive and negative elements within the universe, we are acknowledging the presence of tangible entities or 'elements.' These elements represent 'something' rather than 'nothing.' They pose two critical philosophical questions: why do these elements exist, and how can they be eternal if their existence is contingent and non-necessary? If one dismisses non-physical causation out of hand, the onus is on them to present a physical explanation that doesn't fall prey to these logical dilemmas or to justify the dismissal of non-physical explanations. The reluctance to entertain non-physical causes needs to be scrutinized and justified, especially when physical explanations face significant challenges in addressing the fundamental questions of existence and causation.

Luke Barnes, a non-creationist astrophysicist who is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney, Australia, is scathing about Krauss and those who argue like him: First and foremost, I’m getting really rather sick of cosmologists talking about universes being created out of nothing. Krauss repeatedly talked about universes coming out of nothing, particles coming out of nothing, different types of nothing, nothing being unstable. This is nonsense. The word nothing is often used loosely—I have nothing in my hand, there’s nothing in the fridge etc. But the proper definition of nothing is “not anything”. Nothing is not a type of something, not a kind of thing. It is the absence of anything.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum