Science; What we don\'t know (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, March 12, 2014, 17:47 (3909 days ago)
Nice review article of our gaps in understanding. but the georgous part is the first (and only) comment by a professor who understands how philosophically stupid Lawrence Krauss' 'something from nothing book' is.-http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/2014/03/12/this-is-what-we-dont-know-about-the-universe/
Science; What we don\'t know
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Friday, March 14, 2014, 10:50 (3907 days ago) @ David Turell
The first commenter states:->Can "nothing" be unstable? Not by any scientific logic.->Absolute "nothingness" would be absolutely stable. To any sane natural philosopher it is a fairly ridiculous concept.-I completely disagree with this! How accurately can nothing be measured? To be an absolute nothing it has to be 0.00000000000... where there are an infinity of zeros. If there was a nonzero digit somewhere along the line it would not be nothing but something. Something, however small, is something. Nothing, to exist, has to be impossibly accurately defined.
--
GPJ
Science; What we don\'t know
by David Turell , Friday, March 14, 2014, 15:28 (3907 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> >Can "nothing" be unstable? Not by any scientific logic. > > >Absolute "nothingness" would be absolutely stable. To any sane natural philosopher it is a fairly ridiculous concept. > > George: I completely disagree with this! > How accurately can nothing be measured? > To be an absolute nothing it has to be 0.00000000000... > where there are an infinity of zeros. > If there was a nonzero digit somewhere along the line > it would not be nothing but something. > Something, however small, is something. > Nothing, to exist, has to be impossibly accurately defined.-This discussion is not at a math level, but philosophic. Nothingness can be conceived, and does not need to be measured. As conceived it is stable. Krauss' 'something from nothing' is not nothing, but a quantum virtual vaccuum, which is a something. Thus, something has had to be eternally present for us to be here.
Science; What we don\'t know
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, March 24, 2014, 04:26 (3898 days ago) @ George Jelliss
The first commenter states: > > >Can "nothing" be unstable? Not by any scientific logic. > > >Absolute "nothingness" would be absolutely stable. To any sane natural philosopher it is a fairly ridiculous concept. > > I completely disagree with this! > How accurately can nothing be measured? > To be an absolute nothing it has to be 0.00000000000... > where there are an infinity of zeros. > If there was a nonzero digit somewhere along the line > it would not be nothing but something. > Something, however small, is something. > Nothing, to exist, has to be impossibly accurately defined.-Lawrence Krauss wrote a book in 2012, entitled "Something from Nothing."-In his view, you're wrong: Nothing never ceased to exist in the first place! -Love it when you post here!!!
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"