We come from nothing.

[kerry]

I posted this in another thread, but it's probably worth a thread of its own.


Lawrence Krauss Explains How You Get ‘A Universe From Nothing’ | Open Culture


I have one question that arises from his view. Should he be referring to nothing as potentiality instead of nothing, the way Aristotle did?

[Botnst]

Excellent presentation, thanks for posting.

I'm curious about one thing, if there were quantum fluctuations before the universe was created, what created the quantum fluctuations?

[kerry]

That's why I think he's using the wrong word. Quantum fluctuations are not nothing they are potential something and potential something is not the same as nothing, even if the potential something is not anything at some time.

[Botnst]

Damn, Kerry. Did you do that on purpose?

[The Clk Man]

Originally Posted by kerry

I posted this in another thread, but it's probably worth a thread of its own.


Lawrence Krauss Explains How You Get ‘A Universe From Nothing’ | Open Culture


I have one question that arises from his view. Should he be referring to nothing as potentiality instead of nothing, the way Aristotle did?

That statement is scientifically and mathematically impossible.

[MTUpower]

People speak about potential when they cannot speak about results, and nothing with the potential of something is still nothing until the potential becomes something. The difference is time, which is nothing and everything.

[kerry]

Originally Posted by MTUpower

and nothing with the potential of something is still nothing until the potential becomes something. .

Yes, but is not the same as nothing with no potential. Aristotle argued that everything that exists is made up of both potentialities and actualities. Everything is in the process of actualizing some potentials it has.
so, conceptually he argued that one fundamental component of the universe must be pure potentiality.

[tjts1]

That was pretty good, thanks for posting it. What he said at the end about the future observations of the universe and what you won't be able to see was interesting.

[Botnst]

Let me put in in Thomistic terms: What created the quantum potential?

[TX76513]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Let me put in in Thomistic terms: What created the quantum potential?

The chicken

[kerry]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Let me put in in Thomistic terms: What created the quantum potential?

For Aristotle and I'm pretty sure for Tom, it was always there so had no need of creation. Both the unmoved mover and the quantum potential are both fundamental 'givens' in their explanation of the universe.

(let me revise that. I think for Tom, natural philosophy shows the universe has always existed. He may think the universe had a beginning on the basis of revealed knowledge but that beginning was not knowable via scientific examination hence was not a part of his argument from motion)

[Txjake]

Originally Posted by kerry

For Aristotle and I'm pretty sure for Tom, it was always there so had no need of creation. Both the unmoved mover and the quantum potential are both fundamental 'givens' in their explanation of the universe.

(let me revise that. I think for Tom, natural philosophy shows the universe has always existed. He may think the universe had a beginning on the basis of revealed knowledge but that beginning was not knowable via scientific examination hence was not a part of his argument from motion)

If that potential was always there, then his hypothesis is flawed. The something must come from somewhere.

[kerry]

Originally Posted by Txjake

If that potential was always there, then his hypothesis is flawed. The something must come from somewhere.

I don't think so. You can't get something from empty nothing. You can only get something from nothing that has potential within it. In order for something to be, there has to be something that always exists according to Aristotle. There are two things that always exist in his system. Matter and Form. Matter is defined as pure potentiality and form is defined as pure actuality. Pure actuality becomes God, especially when Christians get a hold of the idea and pure potentiality has become quantum potential now that Krauss has a hold of it.
Contemporary Christian theists misunderstand the history of the argument for motion or argument for an uncaused cause when they adopt the Aquinas/Aristotle argument. Neither thought that God was the sole eternal cause of the universe. God always worked on the potential inherent in matter. Without the eternal existence of potential, there would be no explanation of change in the universe because God is fully actual and never changes. The only logical source of change is potential or matter.

[cjlipps]

so...our entire universe could be a speck under some giant being's fingernail......and we could have an entire universe in a speck under our fingernail?

Can I buy some pot from you?

(couldn't resist)

[MS Fowler]

What is OD coming to?
First we have a discussion of rational/ irrational/ non-rational, and now a discussion of a nothing with or without potential to be something.
It ain't the same old OD.

I think my elementary school teachers were already onto this---they often wrote that I was " not working up to my potential".