A universe from nothing? Is this fucking guy just a total charlatan or should I actually buy into this shit?

news flash: we can't see what's before BB.
Whatever it was, if we are going to talk about it, only way to go is to assume it's compatible with what came next.
If you don't hold on to even that, no point in even talking because anyone can pull anything out of their ass. Which sounds like religion to me.

This is why I am a little confused. I thought we took the vacuum fluctuation part for granted, but that we knew nothing of why such a process is necessary. Like a "why should it be?" and we get the anthropic "because it is" type reply. I dunno.

I understand that it's as far back as we're pretty sure we can go at this point, but it seems intuitive that it'd be some process like that. I'm not sure how it meets the requirements of an absolute initial condition.

I happily volunteer my brainlet status, but Krauss' atheist debates always left me a little... wanting.

what's actually weirder is the notion of literally nothing, does not make sense. think about it. there has to be SOMETHING. even if it doesn't "exist" such as potential. if there was no potential, no anything - just no. it can't be!

but what if there was no "big bang" - that is a reason to enquire.

krauss should be rejected solely on the fact that he conflates "nothing" with "vacuum"

roll

He’s so annoying going out of his way to interject some dad joke about religious people every few minutes. I don’t get people like him and Dawkins. They’re so intelligent but in this one area instead of taking the opportunity to deliver a logical point they act like a 5-year-old.

If you buy into his shit, you will be the first person to do so.

Cannot contest quints.

And yes, Krauss' "nothing" has too much "something" in it.

You could argue it would actually be less natural and more suspicious if the state of nothing enforced a rule of never spontaneously generating something.
If there's really nothing then there also aren't any rules restricting what nothing can lead to.

Why do all atheists look like low-T cucks?

this guy's a genius that btfo's religious nuts and doesn't afraid of anything

He might frustrate low iq theists, but he has never given a debate without using strawmen,ad hominem, or red herrings.

Why is this though?

I think there's a decent argument to made that, while he seems like a cool guy, if he wasn't a charlatan then he they wouldn't let him be a popular media figure

>Why should anything "happen" ever?

Because if nothing ever happened, something would have never happened, and that's clearly not the case.

>"debating" religious people

Literally pointless. You'd be better off standing on the podium next to a flat earther.

so, anthropic argument?

but that rules even are, that something can unfold across time, or that something has potential, is "because it clearly did" all that we can really say for sure?

And I still don't see how that satisfies the initial conditions for everything

on the other hand debating hardcore fedora like krauss is also pointless

This is really my problem, is that he uses the vacuum fluctuations as an atheist debate point. As far as cosmology is concerned, I of course could have no beef, but I don't see how this is some mighty blow to the theists because they will probably neither grasp nor care.

They're making an extraordinary claim, and LK's choice is to fight it with a refresher in the nebulous pre-big bang conditions. Just doesn't really make sense

>but that rules even are
That's the point, if rules don't exist and you have a true nothing, then there's no rule that says something can't come out of nothing.
If you believe nothing can only ever stay nothing then your version of nothing isn't really nothing because you're assuming a rule exists that will keep things from ever existing.

then if I were playing for team god, I would respond with something akin to "So why is there something? Why is there rules? Clearly God. 1 point for God."

See, that's my problem, is that it really doesn't btfo their side like better arguments would

falls under the category "other starting point"
Challenges are to make it compatible with what we see now.
Two famous big ones to be compatible with
faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/Planck/Planck_power_spectrum_orig.jpg
universe-review.ca/I02-09-nucleosynthesis2.jpg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle–Hawking_state

whether you believe Krauss or not,
what you just said is retarded

not him, but it's not a question for me of believing Krauss, it's "Why does Krauss think this carries water in religious debate?"

these people want a "why?" for everything, and they have one; God. Their argument will always win.

Q. "Why is there something?"
A. "God!"

Q "What created him?"
A. "He is everlasting!"

so why even try to bring a real argument against that, especially one that, of course, cannot satisfy those insane parameters? Why even try? To spread awareness? He just makes himself look like an asshole

>So why is there something?
Go back and read the post you're responding to:
>if rules don't exist and you have a true nothing, then there's no rule that says something can't come out of nothing

Christopher Hitchens once said that Krauss is the greatest living physicist.

After hearing that, I lost all respect for Hitchens.

There is no indication that it is possible in any way to remove these properties from "nothing" and that this "absence of everything, including potential" is even conceptually possible.

How can you create something from nothing you fucking fat fedora?

I'm not asking it, I'm pointing out that it doesn't satisfy "God" as the starting point for the opposition. The replacement needs to by both meaty and easily understood. I'm not even sure why these debates exist in the first place, save to spread awareness

vacuum fluctuations, you giant nigger

link i wanna have a laugh

>things that didn't happen

>vaccums are a void

>QFT doesn't exist

You're implying that the man made up word "nothing" actually exists in it's literal sense.

If it doesn't, then saying nothing just means that it's as close to zero, as we perceive it, it can get, but still not, since it is an impossibility.

QFT is *precisely* what tells us that the vacuum (really a bunch of fields: electron spinor field, Higgs scalar field, electromagnetic vector field, etc.) is not nothing, brainlet. And that's not even mentioning general relativity.

You can call a thing god, it doesn't matter. But you can't use any of it to justify any religion, you can only use it to justify the notion that there is a progenitor or source for the universe, or perhaps reality at large. Unless there are universes within universes, this progenitor or source is just some fundamental physic. There is no justification for the Abrahamic god or any 'god' present in any religion. As all have attachments/characterisation/dictation far beyond baser progenitor or source.

>vacuum fluctuations
Those pop sci educated shitters are getting annoying.
arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503158
arxiv.org/abs/1605.04143
arxiv.org/abs/1702.03291
>fields
kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/ModelsOfPhysics-Mermin.pdf

>A universe from nothing? Is this fucking guy just a total charlatan or should I actually buy into this shit?

Who cares, it's not provable.