Something From Nothing

[Theland]

I find this assertion totally ludicrous.
The bible has it totally right. "In the beginning." It took centuries for us to accept that here was a beginning, preferring a perpetual universe.
As atheists, you don't like the possibility of a Creator God.
No problem - for Him.
Not met Him today so do t believe?
Your problem not His.
Not preaching to,you, just giving you facts.
Lots of unbelievers.
Think there is safety in numbers?
Sadly, go for it.

[naomi24]

Jim, //It's because you will find, again and again, that every time you write down a theory for the structure of the Universe, or for the behaviour of gravity, that theory will almost force you to concede the idea that nothing -- in the most literal sense -- is an impossible state to achieve//

That's the basis of Theland's argument.

[jim360]

Not sure I agree -- but anyway.

[Khandro]

I happen to have watched Roger Penrose on this YouTubelast night, "the Beginning" it seems, is a tricky subject;

[naomi24]

Jim, //Not sure I agree //

Why not? If you say //that theory will almost force you to concede the idea that nothing -- in the most literal sense -- is an impossible state to achieve//, you're saying in essence that nothing is nothing and therefore you must agree.

[naomi24]

Khandro, a short synopsis of your video would be helpful. It's almost 20 minutes long. Welcome back by the way.

[ludwig]

Perhaps we just need to accept that the origin of the universe is something we'll never understand. It is what it is, and here we all are.

I personally do not find it remotely upsetting that there's no purpose or controlling intelligence behind it all. In fact it makes it all the more wondrous and fascinating.

I'm off down the pub later.

[jim360]

I don't see how "nothing is impossible" and "nothing is nothing" are equivalent statements.

[naomi24]

Who said 'nothing is impossible' and what does that have to do with your statement?

[jim360]

I said that nothing is impossible, and therefore it's exactly equivalent to my original statement :/

[naomi24]

But you’ve just said //I don't see how "nothing is impossible" and "nothing is nothing" are equivalent statements.//

What are you talking about?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Bienvenue, Khandro.

[Khandro]

naomi; Thanks. 'In simple terms, he believes that the singularity in Einstein's field equation at the Big Bang is only an apparent singularity, similar to the well-known apparent singularity at the event horizon of a black hole. The latter singularity can be removed by a change of coordinate system, and he, (Penrose) proposes a different change of coordinate system that will remove the singularity at the big bang. One implication of this is that the major events at the Big Bang can be understood without unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, and therefore we are not necessarily constrained by the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, which disrupts time. Alternatively, one can use the Einstein–Maxwell–Dirac equations.'
I really couldn't have put it better myself. :0)

[Khandro]

By the way; He also argues on a different tack and not on that video, that known laws of physics are inadequate to explain the phenomenon of consciousness, something with which I (intuitively) know, and with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Ta, vetuste.

[naomi24]

Thank you, Khandro. So basically he's floundering around in the dark just like everyone else.

[naomi24]

Khandro at 12:30, I agree with you.

[andy-hughes]

Theland - // Not preaching to you … //

Yes, you are.

//Just giving you facts. //

No, you are not.

[Theland]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ea/6f/ec/ea6fec8431e572a339519a31879f1a1c.jpg

Penrose illustrates his theory with my avatar, courtesy of M C Escher.

He suggests the beginning and end consist entirely of photons.

God said, "Let there be light."

[mibn2cweus]

If nothing doesn't exist . . . then what exactly are we discussing here?

[naomi24]

Nothing, ;o)