Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 8:03 PM
26 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, edge, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (5 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,645 Year: 3,682/19,786 Month: 677/1,087 Week: 46/221 Day: 17/29 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021222324
25
Author Topic:   The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1723 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 361 of 366 (630566)
08-26-2011 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Larni
08-26-2011 8:14 AM


Re: Thermodynamics
I never knew this, at all. I thought GR was a bunch of numbers that said: "this is how it is".

Well, the inputs are essentially the matter content and maybe some topolgical information. For example, to get the space-time around a planet, star, or other "round" object, we just specify the spherical symmetry and zero mass/energy content outside the object. GR then spits out the Schwarzschild space-time along with, if the object is sufficently dense, the event horizon, and all the interesting space-time topology of the Einstein-Rosen bridge and the other universe sat the other side of the bridge!

In the case of the cosmological space-times, we specify unformly distributed matter and radiation content, and also a comsological constant term. If we set the CC to zero, then we get the traditional Big Bang scenarios of open, flat, and closed, and if we let the CC take some small positive value, then we get the accelerating expansion space-times that we are now having to consider.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Larni, posted 08-26-2011 8:14 AM Larni has not yet responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2047 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 362 of 366 (633732)
09-15-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by cavediver
08-26-2011 7:12 AM


Re: Thermodynamics
Crankdriver, you need a reality check from time to time with the method of your suggested visualizing 'cos your crapping off your mouth here does not draw any picture for me. I am sorry to inform you about that, professor.
Try this medicine:
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/
This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by cavediver, posted 08-26-2011 7:12 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 2047 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 363 of 366 (633733)
09-15-2011 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by cavediver
08-26-2011 7:12 AM


Re: Thermodynamics
Crankdriver, you need a reality check from time to time with the method of your suggested visualizing 'cos your crapping off your mouth here does not draw any picture for me. I am sorry to inform you about that, professor.
Try this medicine:
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/
This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by cavediver, posted 08-26-2011 7:12 AM cavediver has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 364 of 366 (633754)
09-16-2011 6:34 AM


** !! Thread Closing in 48 Hours !! **
The limit has been reached. This thread is now closed to debate.
Participants will be given 48 hours to post one summary of their
final position concerning the topic of the debate.

Please do not respond to previous posts and do not respond to summations.

Again, thread will be closing in 48 hours.

AdminPD

P.S. Trying this without a preclosing.


Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 365 of 366 (633896)
09-17-2011 1:27 AM


Well, my summary for what its worth.

Despite some gallant attempts, no-one has in my view deduced the existence of something a priori.

I agree with those who say that nothing should not be considered as intrinsically more probable than something.

I still think that the question is ill-posed (yes, I know it's my question). The problem, as I said in the OP, is that "Why?" suggests that we are asking for an antecedent cause, which would be a thing, which would be the wrong question: like asking "Who makes it rain?", which wrongly implies that it's a person; or "How tall is jealousy?", implying that it has dimensions.

But if we can't ask "why?" then we seem in need of a whole new interrogative, such as "whub?" At which point we cease to even have the impression that we understand the question, and can be certain that we won't understand the answer.

Q: "Whub is there something rather than nothing?"
A: "Fubble."

And that would seem to be the last word on the matter.


AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 366 of 366 (634014)
09-18-2011 8:38 AM


Thread Closed
The debate has been lively
And the summations read.
If your discussion's unfinished,
Propose a new thread.

Here's to fruitful debating.
AdminPD
Magic Wand


RewPrev1
...
2021222324
25
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019