Bill

Well, I think that you are confused here rather than us. If Einstein proved anything, it is that there is no privileged viewpoint; no absolute origin; everything is relative.

Thus, there cannot be any "absence of all magnitude or quantity" as for that state of affairs to exist, there must be an origin; a privileged point from which to measure "all magnitude or quantity."

Modern theory even denies that a state of quantum vacuum is truly "nothing" and a state of quantum vacuum is about as close to "nothing" as we can conceive of.

== Bill

Karzak the Holy

Well, obviously you fail to comprehend.

The big bang in a current and popular theoretical model involves a total sum of zero energy, if zero is incomprehensible to you, then there is no reason for further discussion.

Bill

Well, I've heard that asserted. I haven't seen it proven. At this point in time, I give that assertion no more credance than the assertion that the flapping of a butterfly's wings on one side of the planet can cause a hurricane way over someplace else (a familiar assertion from chaos theory). Instead, I believe that there are far more ordinary explanations for why things happen the way that they do. Yes, I know that Ockham's Razor doesn't operate as a firm rule, but it still is a good guide for a betting man.

== Bill

hezekiah jones

"Sum of zero"? What makes you think the total "sum" of energy in the universe has varied since that time? If the "total sum of energy" was "zero" at the instant the expansion began, why would "the total sum of energy" be something other than "zero" at the present moment?

Karzak the Holy

Hmmm, you seem confused, one modern theory says one thing, another says another.

"the absence of all magnitude or quantity" certainly exists in a theoretical pre big bang universe.

Is empty pre big bang "space" nothing or something? If it lacks magnitude or quantity, it fits at least one definition of nothing.

Your point seems to be any theory that does admit the existance of nothingness is wrong "just because", and "just because" is not high in my list of acceptable evidence.

Bill

That is the argument advanced by the proponants of this alleged theory: that "the total sum of energy" in our universe at any given moment is exactly zero. Thus, the cooling of the universe (heat-wise) is exactly offset by the addition of POTENTIAL energy due to the expansion of the universe.

I understand a bit of the math, but I'm totally unconvinced that the numbers really can be added up exactly that way. I rather tend to believe that those who add those numbers together have made a foundational category mistake.

== Bill

hezekiah jones

You're the one that's confusing the definition of "zero" with some idea of "nothing." And further confusing matters with the expression, "sum of zero." Are you talking about arithmetical zero or the total sum of energy in the universe? It seems to me these are two entirely different concepts.

Bill

You haven't spent any time explaining or defending your alleged theory. On the other hand, Quantum Mechanics is reasonably well proven, and Quantum Mechanics denies the state of nothingness that you advocate.

Besides, on the one hand, the exact space/time continuum within which we now live did not exist as a "pre big bang universe." The Big Bang itself transformed whatever existed "before" the Big Bang into whatever existed "after" the Big Bang. While some theories have been floated on what might (or might not) have existed "before" the Big Bang, I'm unaware of any of those theories being well-enough proven to overthrow the assertion of a lack of nothingness from Quantum Mechanics. Instead, the theories I most tend to trust are those which are compatible with Quantum Mechanics and the assertion of a lack of nothingness.

Again, if I'm confused, it is because you have failed to properly communicate your own thoughts.

== Bill

hezekiah jones

Yes, the physicist Victor Stenger for example. I don't pretend to understand it, but, I would like to know (god knows why ...) what the hell the Holy One is talking about!

CodeMason

I say we stop giving this nut attention. When we answer his points, he simply says "you did not answer my points".