Recent content by litewave

I don't quite understand why macroscopic objects we encounter in everyday life don't exhibit quantum probabilistic behavior. For example, the car standing in front of my house has a definite position and definite boundaries rather than being dissolved in some cloud where it's not clear whether...

Actually, what I meant to say was that everythingness is nothingness. These two seem indistinguishable. In everythingness things cancel each other because for each thing there is also a thing that is its logical contradiction.

How could everythingness be perfectly symmetrical? Each thing would exist simultaneously with a thing that would be its negation? They would cancel each other out so we would have nothing again but we could imagine that all these things simultaneously exist.

Ok, here is the two links that didn't work in the OP: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/nothing.html http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Origin.pdf :smile:

Marcus, thanks a lot for giving me an overview of the current research into this problem. The idea of an eternal history seems less satisfying to me because it still bothers me with the question "Why is it (the history) there?" So I end up drawn to the idea of nothingness... What I find...

I have recently read a few articles by physicist Victor Stenger and about his book The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? and it seems he has a fascinating answer to the ancient question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?". Since I am not a scientist I'd...

Oh and one more question - is the positive mass-energy of the universe decreasing because of cooling?

Thanks my wan for clarifying this issue. I suppose that the total energy of the universe should be zero because as I imagine, the universe came into being from nothing - from a state with no defined energy - so if the law of energy conservation holds, total defined energy should remain zero.

What I am confused about is whether this issue of total energy being zero can be settled by the general theory of relativity alone or whether one needs empirical data to get a conclusive answer. You seem to be saying the latter. In the article at infidels.org there is a quote from Davies that...

The energy inherent in particles and their motion is the positive energy of matter (mc^2). Did you also consider the gravitational potential energy? This one is negative and it is claimed to exactly offset the positive energy of matter...

darlmc, the total energy content of the universe remains constant but is it zero?

A poetic interlude: Eons ago, before there was physical matter, you were one with us. Your essence remains, even now, indistinguishable from the unified field of being out of which flow duality, multiplicity, and all that flourishes in the eternal play of polarities. In oneness with the...

If we imagine a simple universe with two particles with masses m1 and m2 then we can calculate these two types of energy of the universe: 1) energy of matter = (m1+m2)c^2 2) potential gravitational energy = -2Gm1m2/r (where G is gravitational constant and r is the distance between the two...

It seems so because we usually don't expect something to emerge from nothing. So we naturally imagine that there is a source that is something ("a layer of potential energy"). But if this source also produces space and time then it seems obvious that the source itself is neither in time nor...

I thought it was roiling with energy because there is constantly something springing out of nothing (and then vanishing back into nothing).