Noe eksisterer

[Imlekk]

(...)

 

Er jeg virkelig kynisk som reagerer på dette?

Hmm, godt poeng. Du er kanskje mer naiv enn kynisk, sånn som du reagerer på potensielt overdrevne boktitler og blurbs. For ikke å nevne en viss mangel på godvilje ovenfor Krauss. Som er greit nok, men det burde være åpenbart at jeg ikke deler denne tilnærmingen.

[Skatteflyktning]

 

 

  how science deals with one of the biggest questions of all: How could the universe 's existence arise from nothing?"

The bigger question one need to answer first is

 

Did the universe 's existence arise from nothing?

[Sheasy]

Hmm, godt poeng. Du er kanskje mer naiv enn kynisk, sånn som du reagerer på potensielt overdrevne boktitler og blurbs. For ikke å nevne en viss mangel på godvilje ovenfor Krauss. Som er greit nok, men det burde være åpenbart at jeg ikke deler denne tilnærmingen.

Det forstår jeg virkelig ikke. Hvilke av følgende påstander er det du er uenig i?

 

1. Krauss reklamerer med at han vil svare på det store spørsmålet hvordan noe kan komme fra ingenting, da i betydningen creatio ex nihilo. Det begrunner jeg med at han sier det selv, som jeg viste til i forrige innlegg.

2. Krauss svarer ikke på dette spørsmålet, fordi han redefinerer "ingenting".

[mrSnorkel]

 

Kunne universet/altet ikke eksistere? Må noe eksistere?

 

Et enkelt men utrolig bra spørsmål.

 

Slik jeg forstår vitenskapen på et populistisk nivå, så må noe til enhver tid eksistere.

Man trenger ikke forstå noe annet enn prinsippene ved virtuelle partikler, ekspansjon og mørk energi. -Ikke forveksle med mørk materie!

 

Jeg gidder ikke å ta hele forløpet, men i korte trekk er universet en uendelig rekke av sykluser hvor energien veksler mellom å være i form av materie og kreftene vi kjenner, og til å være vakuumenergi. En eller annen gang før det oppstår totalt vakuum så skjer det noe med disse virtuelle partiklene som gjør at man får et nytt big bang. og prosessen gjentar seg.

 

Syklusene er uendelige, og variasjonene som kan skapes er endelige. Dette gjør ting litt kult, for det betyr at alle mulig univers må gjenta seg, også slik universet er i dag. Det betyr i klarttekst at vi kommer til å leve samme livene uendelig ganger, men også i alle andre mulige varianter. Det litt dumme er at det ikke er noen måte å gjøre de separate eksistensene bevisste på det. 

[RWS]

 

 

Det betyr i klarttekst at vi kommer til å leve samme livene uendelig ganger, 

Sjansen for at de atomene som er meg akkurat nå vil være de samme i en eventuel neste syklus er vel forsvinnende liten vil jeg tro... Dessuten så ville vi med stor sannsynlighet ikke evolvere akkurat helt like som vi ser ut i dag, til det er det ALT for mange tilfeldigheter som spiller inn...

 

Ellers enig at hvis dette gjentar seg igjen og igjen så vil livet evolvere igjen og igjen også... Hadde vært FRYKTELIG morsom å vært her når/hvis det skjedde en gang til, bare for å se forskjellene Selvsagt en umulighet, men endog...

[mrSnorkel]

Sjansene er riktig nok forsvinnende små. Men til gjengjeld så har man uendelig antall forsøk på å oppnå det. Derfor vil det skje, igjen og igjen og igjen...

[RWS]

Sjansene er riktig nok forsvinnende små. Men til gjengjeld så har man uendelig antall forsøk på å oppnå det. Derfor vil det skje, igjen og igjen og igjen...

Ja, det er sant... Faan altså, at en ikke kan være her og iakta det... Ville vært kjempe spennende.... 

 

Evolusjon vil være det ENESTE vi har til felles om/når vi møter på en intelligent livsform noen gang, da den livsformen selvsagt også ville ha evolvert... At det fins liv på andre planeter er jo mest sannsynlig å håpe, intelligent liv derimot er nok litt mer sparsommelig kanskje... 

 

Men veldig fascinerende og interessant ihvertfall...     

[mrSnorkel]

Men, du iaktar det jo her og nå! 

[RWS]

Men, du iaktar det jo her og nå! 

Det er riktig, men skulle gjerne ha sett hvordan ting utviklet seg fra starten av, for å se forskjeller og lignende...

[Imlekk]

 

Hmm, godt poeng. Du er kanskje mer naiv enn kynisk, sånn som du reagerer på potensielt overdrevne boktitler og blurbs. For ikke å nevne en viss mangel på godvilje ovenfor Krauss. Som er greit nok, men det burde være åpenbart at jeg ikke deler denne tilnærmingen.

Det forstår jeg virkelig ikke. Hvilke av følgende påstander er det du er uenig i?

 

1. Krauss reklamerer med at han vil svare på det store spørsmålet hvordan noe kan komme fra ingenting, da i betydningen creatio ex nihilo. Det begrunner jeg med at han sier det selv, som jeg viste til i forrige innlegg.

2. Krauss svarer ikke på dette spørsmålet, fordi han redefinerer "ingenting".

 

Jeg er til dels enig i første påstanden, i den forstanden at rundt publiseringen så var det vitterlig en del overdrivelser. Jeg stiller meg derimot noe mindre enig til at du viste dette i forrige innlegg, når du plukker ut deler av en introduksjon, og - slik jeg forstår det - er uenig i rekkefølgen på delene av introduksjonen.

 

Ideelt, hadde jeg ønsket at en fysiker gjorde det tydeligere at han skulle diskutere fysikk i boka si? Sure. Jeg har intet problem med å si meg enig i det. Dog anser jeg ikke det han, meg bekjent, har gjort som spesielt kritikkverdig, og anser kritikken han har mottatt fra mange hold som kraftig overdrevet. (Men ikke overraskende.)

 

Angående det andre punktet ditt så er jeg naturligvis enig i at han ikke svarer på et spørsmål som han ikke forsøker å svare på. Dog, for presisjonen skyld så er jeg usikker på om det var Krauss som først valgte å bruke begrepet "ingenting" i den betydningen innenfor fysikk. Alex Vilenkin brukte det på samme måten (med forbehold om tekniske nyanser som går over hodet på meg) i 2007 i boka Many Worlds in One.

[Sheasy]

Jeg er til dels enig i første påstanden, i den forstanden at rundt publiseringen så var det vitterlig en del overdrivelser. Jeg stiller meg derimot noe mindre enig til at du viste dette i forrige innlegg, når du plukker ut deler av en introduksjon, og - slik jeg forstår det - er uenig i rekkefølgen på delene av introduksjonen.

 

Ideelt, hadde jeg ønsket at en fysiker gjorde det tydeligere at han skulle diskutere fysikk i boka si? Sure. Jeg har intet problem med å si meg enig i det. Dog anser jeg ikke det han, meg bekjent, har gjort som spesielt kritikkverdig, og anser kritikken han har mottatt fra mange hold som kraftig overdrevet. (Men ikke overraskende.)

 

Angående det andre punktet ditt så er jeg naturligvis enig i at han ikke svarer på et spørsmål som han ikke forsøker å svare på. Dog, for presisjonen skyld så er jeg usikker på om det var Krauss som først valgte å bruke begrepet "ingenting" i den betydningen innenfor fysikk. Alex Vilenkin brukte det på samme måten (med forbehold om tekniske nyanser som går over hodet på meg) i 2007 i boka Many Worlds in One.

Ok. La oss overse tittel, og hva andre enn Krauss (i Krauss sin bok!) påstår at boken handler om, og bare se på introduksjonen. Her er hele:

 

 

In the interests of full disclosure right at the outset I must admit that I am not sympathetic to the conviction that creation requires a creator, which is at the basis of all of the world's religions. Every day beautiful and miraculous objects suddenly appear, from snowflakes on a cold winter morning to vibrant rainbows after a late-afternoon summer shower. Yet no one but the most ardent fundamentalists would suggest that each and every such object is lovingly and painstakingly and, most important, purposefully created by a divine intelligence. In fact, many laypeople as well as scientists revel in our ability to explain how snowflakes and rainbows can spontaneously appear, based on simple, elegant laws of physics.

 

Of course, one can ask, and many do, "Where do the laws of physics come from?" as well as more suggestively, "Who created these laws?" Even if one can answer this first query, the petitioner will then often ask, "But where did that come from?" or "Who created that?" and so on.

 

Ultimately, many thoughtful people are driven to the apparent need for First Cause, as Plato, Aquinas, or the modern Roman Catholic Church might put it, and thereby to suppose some divine being: a creator of all that there is, and all that there ever will be, someone or something eternal and everywhere.

 

Nevertheless, the declaration of a First Cause still leaves open the question, "Who created the creator?" After all, what is the difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one?

 

These arguments always remind me of the famous story of an expert giving a lecture on the origins of the universe (sometimes identified as Bertrand Russell and sometimes William James), who is challenged by a woman who believes that the world is held up by a gigantic turtle, who is then held up by another turtle, and then another ... with further turtles "all the way down! " An infinite regress of some creative force that begets itself, even some imagined force that is greater than turtles, doesn't get us any closer to what it is that gives rise to the universe. Nonetheless, this metaphor of an infinite regression may actually be closer to the real process by which the universe came to be than a single creator would explain.

 

Defining away the question by arguing that the buck stops with God may seem to obviate the issue of infinite regression, but here I invoke my mantra: The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not. The existence or nonexistence of a creator is independent of our desires. A world without God or purpose may seem harsh or pointless, but that alone doesn't require God to actually exist.

 

Similarly, our minds may not be able to easily comprehend infinities (although mathematics, a product of our minds, deals with them rather nicely) , but that doesn't tell us that infinities don't exist. Our universe could be infinite in spatial or temporal extent. Or, as Richard Feynman once put it, the laws of physics could be like an infinitely layered onion, with new laws becoming operational as we probe new scales. We simply don 'f know!

 

For more than two thousand years, the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been presented as a challenge to the proposition that our universe-which contains the vast complex of stars, galaxies, humans, and who knows what elsemight have arisen without design, intent, or purpose. While this is usually framed as a philosophical or religious question, it is first and foremost a question about the natural world, and so the appropriate place to try and resolve it, first and foremost, is with science.

 

The purpose of this book is simple. I want to show how modern science, in various guises, can address and is addressing the

question of why there is something rather than nothing: The answers that have been obtained-from staggeringly beautiful experimental observations, as well as from the theories that underlie much of modern physics-all suggest that getting something from nothing is not a problem. Indeed, something from nothing may have been required for the universe to come into being. Moreover, all signs suggest that this is how our universe could have arisen.

 

I stress the word could here, because we may never have enough empirical information to resolve this question unambiguously. But the fact that a universe from nothing is even plausible is certainly significant, at least to me.

 

Before going further, I want to devote a few words to the notion of "nothing" -a topic that I will return to at some length later. For I have learned that, when discussing this question in public forums, nothing upsets the philosophers and theologians who disagree with me more than the notion that I, as a scientist, do not truly understand "nothing. " (I am tempted to retort here that theologians are experts at nothing.)

 

"Nothing," they insist, is not any of the things I discuss. Nothing is "nonbeing," in some vague and ill-defined sense. This reminds me of my own efforts to define "intelligent design" when I first began debating with creationists , of which, it became clear, there is no clear definition, except to say what it isn't. "Intelligent design" is simply a unifying umbrella for opposing evolution. Similarly, some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine "nothing" as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe.

 

But therein, in my opinion, lies the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy. For surely "nothing" is every bit as physical as "something," especially if it is to be defined as the "absence of something." It then behooves us to understand precisely the physical nature of both these quantities. And without science, any definition is just words.

 

A century ago, had one described "nothing" as referring to purely empty space, possessing no real material entity, this might have received little argument. But the results of the past century have taught us that empty space is in fact far from the inviolate nothingness that we presupposed before we learned more about how nature works. Now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as "nothing," but rather as a "quantum vacuum," to distinguish it from the philosopher's or theologian's idealized "nothing."

 

So be it. But what if we are then willing to describe "nothing" as the absence of space and time itself? Is this sufficient? Again, I suspect it would have been . . . at one time. But, as I shall describe, we have learned that space and time can themselves spontaneously appear, so now we are told that even this "nothing" is not really the nothing that matters. And we 're told that the escape from the "real" nothing requires divinity, with "nothing" thus defined by fiat to be "that from which only God can create something. "

 

It has also been suggested by various individuals with whom I have debated the issue that, if there is the "potential" to create something, then that is not a state of true nothingness. And surely having laws of nature that give such potential takes us away from the true realm of nonbeing. But then, if I argue that perhaps the laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true nothingness.

 

Turtles all the way down? I don't believe so. But the turtles are appealing because science is changing the playing field in ways that make people uncomfortable. Of course, that is one of the purposes of science (one might have said "natural philosophy" in Socratic times) . Lack of comfort means we are on the threshold of new insights. Surely, invoking "God" to avoid difficult questions of "how" is merely intellectually lazy. After all, if there were no potential for creation, then God couldn't have created anything. It would be semantic hocus-pocus to assert that the potentially infinite regression is avoided because God exists outside nature and, therefore, the "potential" for existence itself is not a part of the nothingness from which existence arose.

 

My real purpose here is to demonstrate that in fact science has changed the playing field, so that these abstract and useless

debates about the nature of nothingness have been replaced by useful, operational efforts to describe how our universe might

actually have originated. I will also explain the possible implications of this for our present and future.

 

This reflects a very important fact. When it comes to understanding how our universe evolves, religion and theology have been at best irrelevant. They often muddy the waters, for example, by focusing on questions of nothingness without providing any definition of the term based on empirical evidence. While we do not yet fully understand the origin of our universe, there is no reason to expect things to change in this regard. Moreover, I expect that ultimately the same will be true for our

understanding of areas that religion now considers its own territory, such as human morality.

 

Science has been effective at furthering our understanding of nature because the scientific ethos is based on three key

principles: (1) follow the evidence wherever it leads; (2) if one has a theory, one needs to be willing to try to prove it wrong as much as one tries to prove that it is right; (3) the ultimate arbiter of truth is experiment, not the comfort one derives from one 's a priori beliefs, nor the beauty or elegance one ascribes to one 's theoretical models.

 

The results of experiments that I will describe here are not only timely, they are also unexpected. The tapestry that science weaves in describing the evolution of our universe is far richer and far more fascinating than any revelatory images or imaginative stories that humans have concocted. Nature comes up with surprises that far exceed those that the human imagination can generate.

 

Over the past two decades, an exciting series of developments in cosmology, particle theory, and gravitation have completely

changed the way we view the universe, with startling and profound implications for our understanding of its origins as well

as its future. Nothing could therefore not be more interesting to write about, if you can forgive the pun.

 

The true inspiration for this book comes not so much from a desire to dispel myths or attack beliefs, as from my desire to celebrate knowledge and, along with it, the absolutely surprising and fascinating universe that ours has turned out to be.

 

Our search will take us on a whirlwind tour to the farthest reaches of our expanding universe, from the earliest moments of

the Big Bang to the far future, and will include perhaps the most surprising discovery in physics in the past century.

 

Indeed, the immediate motivation for writing this book now is a profound discovery about the universe that has driven my own

scientific research for most of the past three decades and that has resulted in the startling conclusion that most of the energy in the universe resides in some mysterious, now inexplicable form permeating all of empty space. It is not an understatement to say that this discovery has changed the playing field of modern cosmology.

 

For one thing, this discovery has produced remarkable new support for the idea that our universe arose from precisely nothing. It has also provoked us to rethink both a host of assumptions about the processes that might govern its evolution and, ultimately, the question of whether the very laws of nature are truly fundamental. Each of these, in its own turn, now tends to

make the question of why there is something rather than nothing appear less imposing, if not completely facile, as I hope to

describe.

 

The direct genesis of this book hearkens back to October of 2009, when I delivered a lecture in Los Angeles with the same title. Much to my surprise, the YouTube video of the lecture, made available by the Richard Dawkins Foundation, has since become something of a sensation, with nearly a million viewings as of this writing, and numerous copies of parts of it being used by both the atheist and theist communities in their debates.

 

Because of the clear interest in this subject, and also as a result of some of the confusing commentary on the web and in various media following my lecture, I thought it worth producing a more complete rendition of the ideas that I had expressed there in this book. Here I can also take the opportunity to add to the arguments I presented at the time, which focused almost completely on the recent revolutions in cosmology that have changed our picture of the universe, associated with the discovery of the energy and geometry of space, and which I discuss in the first two-thirds of

this book.

 

In the intervening period, I have thought a lot more about the many antecedents and ideas constituting my argument; I 've

discussed it with others who reacted with a kind of enthusiasm that was infectious; and I 've explored in more depth the impact of developments in particle physics, in particular, on the issue of the origin and nature of our universe. And finally, I have exposed some of my arguments to those who vehemently oppose them, and in so doing have gained some insights that have helped me

develop my arguments further.

 

While fleshing out the ideas I have ultimately tried to describe here, I benefitted tremendously from discussions with some of my most thoughtful physics colleagues. In particular I wanted to thank Alan Guth and Frank Wilczek for taking the time to have

extended discussions and correspondence with me, resolving some confusions in my own mind and in certain cases helping

reinforce my own interpretations.

 

Emboldened by the interest of Leslie Meredith and Dominick Anfuso at Free Press, Simon & Schuster, in the possibility of a book on this subject, I then contacted my friend Christopher Hitchens, who, besides being one of the most literate and brilliant individuals I know, had himself been able to use some of the arguments from my lecture in his remarkable series of debates on science and religion. Christopher, in spite of his ill health, kindly, generously, and bravely agreed to write a foreword. For that act of friendship and trust, I will be eternally grateful. Unfortunately, Christopher's illness eventually overwhelmed him to the extent that completing the foreword became impossible, in spite of his best efforts. Nevertheless, in an embarrassment of riches , my eloquent, brilliant friend, the renowned scientist and writer Richard Dawkins, had earlier agreed to write an afterword. After my first draft was completed, he then proceeded to produce something in short order whose beauty and clarity was astounding, and at the same time humbling. I remain in awe. To Christopher, Richard, then, and all of those above, I issue my thanks for their support and encouragement, and for motivatingme to once again return to my computer and write.

 

 

Ettersom jeg har tatt med hele, så kan jeg umulig ha jukset med kontekst. (Jeg er litt usikker på hvordan jeg skal tolke en av setningene dine. Sier du at det du tror jeg er uenig i er rekkefølgen introduksjonen er skrevet i? I så fall har du virkelig ikke forstått riktig.)

 

Å ta med hele introduksjonen stiller ikke Krauss i et bedre lys. Tvert om; i tillegg til at vi i klartekst får se han snuble seg gjennom hva han tror Aquinas sier, og sannsynligvis forvirre Platon og Aristoteles, så får vi i klartekst at han absolutt har tenkt til å svare på det store spørsmålet "how something can come from nothing", at han har rett, og at teite, feige og uærlige filosofer og religiøse bare redefinerer "ingenting" slik at ikke de slemme fysikerne "vinner". Krauss sier rett ut at "ingenting" er fysisk. Ikke hans egen definisjon, eller Vilenkin sin. (Edit: Det vi får i klartekst er at Krauss har tenkt til å svare på spørsmålet, og at hans definisjon av "ingenting" er "ingenting". Resten av avsnittet er parafrasering av alle Krauss sine anklager om "feelz>reals" om de som måtte være uenig.)

 

Hvis jeg skal være helt ærlig her, så tror jeg du viser ekstrem godvilje overfor folk som Dawkins og Krauss fordi de er vitenskapsmenn, og at du ikke ville vært like "charitable" hvis det var snakk om folk som William Lane Craig. (Dette kan jeg selvsagt ikke bevise, og du kan sikkert si noe lignende om meg. Dette er ikke et forsøk på å score poeng.) Hvis dette er riktig, så er du kanskje mer åpen for kritikk hvis den kommer fra andre fysikere?

 

Her er David Albert sin anmeldelse av boken. Han har en doktorgrad i teoretisk fysikk, og har publisert masse om kvantemekanikk. Hva tenker du om den? Krauss selv mener at Albert bare er en filosof, og ikke en ordentlig fysiker, som er såret over at Krauss fornærmer filosofi.

Endret 9. september 2016 av Sheasy

[Imlekk]

 

Jeg er til dels enig i første påstanden, i den forstanden at rundt publiseringen så var det vitterlig en del overdrivelser. Jeg stiller meg derimot noe mindre enig til at du viste dette i forrige innlegg, når du plukker ut deler av en introduksjon, og - slik jeg forstår det - er uenig i rekkefølgen på delene av introduksjonen.

 

Ideelt, hadde jeg ønsket at en fysiker gjorde det tydeligere at han skulle diskutere fysikk i boka si? Sure. Jeg har intet problem med å si meg enig i det. Dog anser jeg ikke det han, meg bekjent, har gjort som spesielt kritikkverdig, og anser kritikken han har mottatt fra mange hold som kraftig overdrevet. (Men ikke overraskende.)

 

Angående det andre punktet ditt så er jeg naturligvis enig i at han ikke svarer på et spørsmål som han ikke forsøker å svare på. Dog, for presisjonen skyld så er jeg usikker på om det var Krauss som først valgte å bruke begrepet "ingenting" i den betydningen innenfor fysikk. Alex Vilenkin brukte det på samme måten (med forbehold om tekniske nyanser som går over hodet på meg) i 2007 i boka Many Worlds in One.

Ok. La oss overse tittel, og hva andre enn Krauss (i Krauss sin bok!) påstår at boken handler om, og bare se på introduksjonen. Her er hele:

 

 

In the interests of full disclosure right at the outset I must admit that I am not sympathetic to the conviction that creation requires a creator, which is at the basis of all of the world's religions. Every day beautiful and miraculous objects suddenly appear, from snowflakes on a cold winter morning to vibrant rainbows after a late-afternoon summer shower. Yet no one but the most ardent fundamentalists would suggest that each and every such object is lovingly and painstakingly and, most important, purposefully created by a divine intelligence. In fact, many laypeople as well as scientists revel in our ability to explain how snowflakes and rainbows can spontaneously appear, based on simple, elegant laws of physics.

 

Of course, one can ask, and many do, "Where do the laws of physics come from?" as well as more suggestively, "Who created these laws?" Even if one can answer this first query, the petitioner will then often ask, "But where did that come from?" or "Who created that?" and so on.

 

Ultimately, many thoughtful people are driven to the apparent need for First Cause, as Plato, Aquinas, or the modern Roman Catholic Church might put it, and thereby to suppose some divine being: a creator of all that there is, and all that there ever will be, someone or something eternal and everywhere.

 

Nevertheless, the declaration of a First Cause still leaves open the question, "Who created the creator?" After all, what is the difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one?

 

These arguments always remind me of the famous story of an expert giving a lecture on the origins of the universe (sometimes identified as Bertrand Russell and sometimes William James), who is challenged by a woman who believes that the world is held up by a gigantic turtle, who is then held up by another turtle, and then another ... with further turtles "all the way down! " An infinite regress of some creative force that begets itself, even some imagined force that is greater than turtles, doesn't get us any closer to what it is that gives rise to the universe. Nonetheless, this metaphor of an infinite regression may actually be closer to the real process by which the universe came to be than a single creator would explain.

 

Defining away the question by arguing that the buck stops with God may seem to obviate the issue of infinite regression, but here I invoke my mantra: The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not. The existence or nonexistence of a creator is independent of our desires. A world without God or purpose may seem harsh or pointless, but that alone doesn't require God to actually exist.

 

Similarly, our minds may not be able to easily comprehend infinities (although mathematics, a product of our minds, deals with them rather nicely) , but that doesn't tell us that infinities don't exist. Our universe could be infinite in spatial or temporal extent. Or, as Richard Feynman once put it, the laws of physics could be like an infinitely layered onion, with new laws becoming operational as we probe new scales. We simply don 'f know!

 

For more than two thousand years, the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been presented as a challenge to the proposition that our universe-which contains the vast complex of stars, galaxies, humans, and who knows what elsemight have arisen without design, intent, or purpose. While this is usually framed as a philosophical or religious question, it is first and foremost a question about the natural world, and so the appropriate place to try and resolve it, first and foremost, is with science.

 

The purpose of this book is simple. I want to show how modern science, in various guises, can address and is addressing the

question of why there is something rather than nothing: The answers that have been obtained-from staggeringly beautiful experimental observations, as well as from the theories that underlie much of modern physics-all suggest that getting something from nothing is not a problem. Indeed, something from nothing may have been required for the universe to come into being. Moreover, all signs suggest that this is how our universe could have arisen.

 

I stress the word could here, because we may never have enough empirical information to resolve this question unambiguously. But the fact that a universe from nothing is even plausible is certainly significant, at least to me.

 

Before going further, I want to devote a few words to the notion of "nothing" -a topic that I will return to at some length later. For I have learned that, when discussing this question in public forums, nothing upsets the philosophers and theologians who disagree with me more than the notion that I, as a scientist, do not truly understand "nothing. " (I am tempted to retort here that theologians are experts at nothing.)

 

"Nothing," they insist, is not any of the things I discuss. Nothing is "nonbeing," in some vague and ill-defined sense. This reminds me of my own efforts to define "intelligent design" when I first began debating with creationists , of which, it became clear, there is no clear definition, except to say what it isn't. "Intelligent design" is simply a unifying umbrella for opposing evolution. Similarly, some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine "nothing" as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe.

 

But therein, in my opinion, lies the intellectual bankruptcy of much of theology and some of modern philosophy. For surely "nothing" is every bit as physical as "something," especially if it is to be defined as the "absence of something." It then behooves us to understand precisely the physical nature of both these quantities. And without science, any definition is just words.

 

A century ago, had one described "nothing" as referring to purely empty space, possessing no real material entity, this might have received little argument. But the results of the past century have taught us that empty space is in fact far from the inviolate nothingness that we presupposed before we learned more about how nature works. Now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as "nothing," but rather as a "quantum vacuum," to distinguish it from the philosopher's or theologian's idealized "nothing."

 

So be it. But what if we are then willing to describe "nothing" as the absence of space and time itself? Is this sufficient? Again, I suspect it would have been . . . at one time. But, as I shall describe, we have learned that space and time can themselves spontaneously appear, so now we are told that even this "nothing" is not really the nothing that matters. And we 're told that the escape from the "real" nothing requires divinity, with "nothing" thus defined by fiat to be "that from which only God can create something. "

 

It has also been suggested by various individuals with whom I have debated the issue that, if there is the "potential" to create something, then that is not a state of true nothingness. And surely having laws of nature that give such potential takes us away from the true realm of nonbeing. But then, if I argue that perhaps the laws themselves also arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true nothingness.

 

Turtles all the way down? I don't believe so. But the turtles are appealing because science is changing the playing field in ways that make people uncomfortable. Of course, that is one of the purposes of science (one might have said "natural philosophy" in Socratic times) . Lack of comfort means we are on the threshold of new insights. Surely, invoking "God" to avoid difficult questions of "how" is merely intellectually lazy. After all, if there were no potential for creation, then God couldn't have created anything. It would be semantic hocus-pocus to assert that the potentially infinite regression is avoided because God exists outside nature and, therefore, the "potential" for existence itself is not a part of the nothingness from which existence arose.

 

My real purpose here is to demonstrate that in fact science has changed the playing field, so that these abstract and useless

debates about the nature of nothingness have been replaced by useful, operational efforts to describe how our universe might

actually have originated. I will also explain the possible implications of this for our present and future.

 

This reflects a very important fact. When it comes to understanding how our universe evolves, religion and theology have been at best irrelevant. They often muddy the waters, for example, by focusing on questions of nothingness without providing any definition of the term based on empirical evidence. While we do not yet fully understand the origin of our universe, there is no reason to expect things to change in this regard. Moreover, I expect that ultimately the same will be true for our

understanding of areas that religion now considers its own territory, such as human morality.

 

Science has been effective at furthering our understanding of nature because the scientific ethos is based on three key

principles: (1) follow the evidence wherever it leads; (2) if one has a theory, one needs to be willing to try to prove it wrong as much as one tries to prove that it is right; (3) the ultimate arbiter of truth is experiment, not the comfort one derives from one 's a priori beliefs, nor the beauty or elegance one ascribes to one 's theoretical models.

 

The results of experiments that I will describe here are not only timely, they are also unexpected. The tapestry that science weaves in describing the evolution of our universe is far richer and far more fascinating than any revelatory images or imaginative stories that humans have concocted. Nature comes up with surprises that far exceed those that the human imagination can generate.

 

Over the past two decades, an exciting series of developments in cosmology, particle theory, and gravitation have completely

changed the way we view the universe, with startling and profound implications for our understanding of its origins as well

as its future. Nothing could therefore not be more interesting to write about, if you can forgive the pun.

 

The true inspiration for this book comes not so much from a desire to dispel myths or attack beliefs, as from my desire to celebrate knowledge and, along with it, the absolutely surprising and fascinating universe that ours has turned out to be.

 

Our search will take us on a whirlwind tour to the farthest reaches of our expanding universe, from the earliest moments of

the Big Bang to the far future, and will include perhaps the most surprising discovery in physics in the past century.

 

Indeed, the immediate motivation for writing this book now is a profound discovery about the universe that has driven my own

scientific research for most of the past three decades and that has resulted in the startling conclusion that most of the energy in the universe resides in some mysterious, now inexplicable form permeating all of empty space. It is not an understatement to say that this discovery has changed the playing field of modern cosmology.

 

For one thing, this discovery has produced remarkable new support for the idea that our universe arose from precisely nothing. It has also provoked us to rethink both a host of assumptions about the processes that might govern its evolution and, ultimately, the question of whether the very laws of nature are truly fundamental. Each of these, in its own turn, now tends to

make the question of why there is something rather than nothing appear less imposing, if not completely facile, as I hope to

describe.

 

The direct genesis of this book hearkens back to October of 2009, when I delivered a lecture in Los Angeles with the same title. Much to my surprise, the YouTube video of the lecture, made available by the Richard Dawkins Foundation, has since become something of a sensation, with nearly a million viewings as of this writing, and numerous copies of parts of it being used by both the atheist and theist communities in their debates.

 

Because of the clear interest in this subject, and also as a result of some of the confusing commentary on the web and in various media following my lecture, I thought it worth producing a more complete rendition of the ideas that I had expressed there in this book. Here I can also take the opportunity to add to the arguments I presented at the time, which focused almost completely on the recent revolutions in cosmology that have changed our picture of the universe, associated with the discovery of the energy and geometry of space, and which I discuss in the first two-thirds of

this book.

 

In the intervening period, I have thought a lot more about the many antecedents and ideas constituting my argument; I 've

discussed it with others who reacted with a kind of enthusiasm that was infectious; and I 've explored in more depth the impact of developments in particle physics, in particular, on the issue of the origin and nature of our universe. And finally, I have exposed some of my arguments to those who vehemently oppose them, and in so doing have gained some insights that have helped me

develop my arguments further.

 

While fleshing out the ideas I have ultimately tried to describe here, I benefitted tremendously from discussions with some of my most thoughtful physics colleagues. In particular I wanted to thank Alan Guth and Frank Wilczek for taking the time to have

extended discussions and correspondence with me, resolving some confusions in my own mind and in certain cases helping

reinforce my own interpretations.

 

Emboldened by the interest of Leslie Meredith and Dominick Anfuso at Free Press, Simon & Schuster, in the possibility of a book on this subject, I then contacted my friend Christopher Hitchens, who, besides being one of the most literate and brilliant individuals I know, had himself been able to use some of the arguments from my lecture in his remarkable series of debates on science and religion. Christopher, in spite of his ill health, kindly, generously, and bravely agreed to write a foreword. For that act of friendship and trust, I will be eternally grateful. Unfortunately, Christopher's illness eventually overwhelmed him to the extent that completing the foreword became impossible, in spite of his best efforts. Nevertheless, in an embarrassment of riches , my eloquent, brilliant friend, the renowned scientist and writer Richard Dawkins, had earlier agreed to write an afterword. After my first draft was completed, he then proceeded to produce something in short order whose beauty and clarity was astounding, and at the same time humbling. I remain in awe. To Christopher, Richard, then, and all of those above, I issue my thanks for their support and encouragement, and for motivatingme to once again return to my computer and write.

 

 

Ettersom jeg har tatt med hele, så kan jeg umulig ha jukset med kontekst. (Jeg er litt usikker på hvordan jeg skal tolke en av setningene dine. Sier du at det du tror jeg er uenig i er rekkefølgen introduksjonen er skrevet i? I så fall har du virkelig ikke forstått riktig.)

 

Mitt inntrykk var at en av tingene du kritiserte var at Krauss ikke presiserer hva han mener med "ingenting" før han snakker om hva boka handler om.

 

Å ta med hele introduksjonen stiller ikke Krauss i et bedre lys. Tvert om; i tillegg til at vi i klartekst får se han snuble seg gjennom hva han tror Aquinas sier, og sannsynligvis forvirre Platon og Aristoteles, så får vi i klartekst at han absolutt har tenkt til å svare på det store spørsmålet "how something can come from nothing", at han har rett, og at teite, feige og uærlige filosofer og religiøse bare redefinerer "ingenting" slik at ikke de slemme fysikerne "vinner". Krauss sier rett ut at "ingenting" er fysisk. Ikke hans egen definisjon, eller Vilenkin sin. (Edit: Det vi får i klartekst er at Krauss har tenkt til å svare på spørsmålet, og at hans definisjon av "ingenting" er "ingenting". Resten av avsnittet er parafrasering av alle Krauss sine anklager om "feelz>reals" om de som måtte være uenig.)

Og, hvor han samtidig presiserer hva han mener med ingenting. Som er det vår utveksling handlet om fra begynnelsen, hvor jeg sa meg uenig når du skrev dette;

 

Du mener "ingenting". Krauss skrev en hel bok der han hevder å diskutere hvordan noe kommer fra ingenting, men ender opp med å skrive om hvordan noe kan komme fra noe annet.

I boka så presiserer Krauss hva han hevdet å skrive om. Dog på en overdrevent polemisk måte.

 

Hvis jeg skal være helt ærlig her, så tror jeg du viser ekstrem godvilje overfor folk som Dawkins og Krauss fordi de er vitenskapsmenn, og at du ikke ville vært like "charitable" hvis det var snakk om folk som William Lane Craig. (Dette kan jeg selvsagt ikke bevise, og du kan sikkert si noe lignende om meg. Dette er ikke et forsøk på å score poeng.) Hvis dette er riktig, så er du kanskje mer åpen for kritikk hvis den kommer fra andre fysikere?

Det kan hende du har rett. (Jeg har vitterlig ikke mye godvilje til overs for WLC.) På den andre siden så har jeg heller ikke påstått at verken Krauss eller Dawkins ikke oppfører seg kritikkverdig. Jeg har for eksempel intet problem med å si meg uenig i Krauss sitt syn på filosofi, og anser mye av kritikken mot han der som gyldig.

 

Her er David Albert sin anmeldelse av boken. Han har en doktorgrad i teoretisk fysikk, og har publisert masse om kvantemekanikk. Hva tenker du om den? Krauss selv mener at Albert bare er en filosof, og ikke en ordentlig fysiker, som er såret over at Krauss fornærmer filosofi.

Jeg har lest den tidligere. Hva jeg tenker om den på hvilken måte? Vel, jeg er usikker på om det å svare et overdrevent polemisk verk med en overdrevent polemisk kritikk er det mest konstruktive man kunne ha gjort. Jeg observerer også en viss uenighet rundt fysikken, som for å være ærlig går litt over hodet på meg.

[Sheasy]

[...]

Right, men det hjelper jo lite at Krauss definerer hva han mener med ingenting når han samtidig er klinkende klar på at han med denne definisjonen mener at han faktisk svarer på det store spørsmålet "how can something come from nothing?, og ikke bare "how can something come from nothing*/quantum fields?. La meg prøve med et eksempel.

 

Jeg skriver en bok. Evolusjonsteorien: Den Store Løgnen. Her skriver jeg om at evolusjonsteorien er feil. Jeg definerer evolusjon som det at to individer av samme art føder et avkom fra en helt annen art som allerede eksisterer. Et eksempel på evolusjon vil være at to hunder føder en katt, eller at to mus føder en bjørn. Deretter forteller jeg at jeg er klar over at enkelte vil reagere på definisjonen jeg har brukt, og vil insistere på at evolusjon egentlig handler om hvordan arvelige egenskaper, mutasjoner etc., forandrer populasjoner over tid (sett inn presis definisjon, det er ikke poenget). Men, det er ikke noe å bry seg om, dette er folk som er bitre fordi de har kastet bort tiden sin, de er hypnotisert av egen dogma, og de er teite. Min definisjon er hva evolusjon faktisk er.

 

Hunder kan ikke føde katter. Mus kan ikke føde bjørner. (Forutsett at jeg i boken beviser dette på en tilfredsstillende måte.) En teori som forklarer hvordan evolusjon fungerer er nødvendigvis gal hvis evolusjon ikke fungerer, så evolusjonsteorien er gal.

 

Her har jeg vært klar på at med evolusjon, så mener jeg egentlig evolusjon** (min definisjon). Det jeg mener med at evolusjonsteorien er gal er altså at evolusjonsteorien** er gal. Men, jeg mener også at evolusjonsteorien og evolusjonsteorien** er det samme, så jeg mener at evolusjonsteorien er gal.

 

Ja, Krauss definerer ingenting som ingenting*. Men, han mener at de to tingene er det samme, og mener derfor at han har skrevet en bok om ingenting. Han tar feil, og ender opp med å ikke skrive om hvordan noe kan komme fra ingenting, men hvordan noe kan komme fra ingenting*. Ingenting* er noe annet, så han ender opp med å skrive en bok om hvordan noe kan komme fra noe annet. Selv om han ikke er klar over det selv, fordi han tror at ingenting* er ingenting.

Endret 11. september 2016 av Sheasy

[RWS]

 

 

Her har jeg vært klar på at med evolusjon, så mener jeg egentlig evolusjon** (min definisjon). Det jeg mener med atevolusjonsteorien er gal er altså at evolusjonsteorien** er gal. 

Hvorfor differensiere når du mener det samme om begge?

 

Og hva er galt med evolusjon?

[Noxhaven]

Det er kun en hypotetisk analogi på hva han finner "uærlig" i boken til Krauss, RWS. Han er nok ikke av oppfatning at noe er galt med evolusjonsteorien

 

Krauss fremmer at før det ble noe så var det ingenting, men hva han mener med ingenting er fortsatt noe og ikke et fravær av alt.

Om det er en uærlig markedsførings metode for å få boken i rampelyset kan nok være, men jeg synes saken er ganske så smal ettersom han forklarer hva han mener med "ingenting" i mangel på et mer presist ord.

 

At "ingenting" i forstand av det som var eller ikke var før universet utfoldet seg skal være et tilsvarende akseptert konsept som en vitenskapelig teori/faktum som f.eks evolusjonsteorien har jeg vanskeligheter med å svelge. Men jeg ser poenget.

[Sheasy]

Jeg vil da påstå at creatio ex nihilo er et mye mer etablert konsept enn evolusjon.

[Noxhaven]

Hva jeg mente var at når noen prater om evolusjonsteorien så er det ikke vanskelig å definere hva begrepet går ut på.

"Nothing" er svært paraplybegrep som omhandler alt ifra tidløst rom, fravær av materie, en void, en ren tilværelse, et rent fravær av alt.. med mer. 

 

En bok som omhandler et slikt konsept som skal selges inn til den allmenne befolkningen, som kan forbinde begrepet alle mulige veier trenger en spesifisering, men man trenger også et kort og greit begrep om man skal kunne skrive om det - Krauss beskriver hva han mener med begrepet i innledningen så det ikke skal forveksles med andre konsepter, f.eks det filosofiske ingenting.

 

Krauss er heller ikke alene om å definere "ingenting" på denne måten og han har aldri prøvd å skjule hva han mener med begrepet, f.eks Stephen Hawking og Michio Kaku definerer også ingenting som et ustabilt partikkel løst kvantum vakuum. 

Dette spriker som du poengterer med det filosofiske konseptet av ingenting, som ikke følger fysikkens lover og som ikke har noen egne egenskaper. Men Krauss har aldri påstått at det er dette konseptet av ingenting han fremmer når han forklarer hypotesen rundt et "Null energi univers".

[Sheasy]

Hvis Krauss aldri har påstått dette, hvorfor er han da klinkende klar på at han svarer på det eldgamle filosofiske spørsmålet hvordan noe kan komme fra ingenting? Dette spørsmålet handler om creatio ex nihilo, det er udiskutabelt. Hvorfor sier han at filosofer som reagerer på definisjonen hans bare er butthurt, og insisterer på at nothing (i konteksten creatio ex nihilo) er fysisk?

 

Du er enig i at "det eldgamle spørsmålet" handler om filosofisk ingenting, ikke sant?

[Noxhaven]

...

 

Du er enig i at "det eldgamle spørsmålet" handler om filosofisk ingenting, ikke sant?

 

Right, men jeg er åpen for at det eldgamle spørsmålet kan være stilt på feil premisser og at det kan være nyttig å angripe "eldgamle spørsmål" fra nye vinkler.

 

 

 

Dette spørsmålet handler om creatio ex nihilo, det er udiskutabelt. 

 

"Fra intet", der intet er skrevet i sten låser problemstillingen.

Du kan godt være uenig i definisjonen hans på "intet" i ex nihilo kontekst, men å ta en filosofisk definisjons-patent på hva "ingenting" var i tilstanden der vi ikke kan vite, låser problemstillingen i premisset, et premiss som kan være riktig men ikke nødvendigvis.  

 

 

 

Hvorfor sier han at filosofer som reagerer på definisjonen hans bare er butthurt, og insisterer på at nothing (i konteksten creatio ex nihilo) er fysisk?

 

Han insisterer vel på at den eneste løsningen der nothing er fysisk i det eldgamle spørsmålet er et flatt null-energi univers. En hypotese noen filosofer benekter begrunnet en fastsatt definisjon på fraværet av noe.

[Sheasy]

Det er jo det spørsmålet betyr! Spørsmålet inneholder ingen hypotese om at dette ingenting må ha eksistert.

 

Hvis jeg spør om Chris Brown, cricketspilleren, har slått Rihanna, så spør jeg om Chris Brown, cricketspilleren, har slått Rihanna. Det er du enig i, ikke sant? At Chris Brown, musikeren, har slått Rihanna, betyr på ingen måte at Chris Brown, cricketspilleren, har slått Rihanna. Ja?