We live in a infinite universe

[The Man]

Wait, it "needed to" before it "came from nothing"? Since after it "came from nothing" it wouldn't have, you know, "needed to".

 

[Kid Eager]

The universe came from nothing because it needed to.

Be a good bot and confine your pointless posts to a single thread, eh?

 

[slipknot0129]

Wait, it "needed to" before it "came from nothing"? Since after it "came from nothing" it wouldn't have, you know, "needed to".

Our souls craved for it to come from nothing.

 

[The Man]

What craving souls? Remember that nothing you mentioned? A whole bunch of craving souls ain't nothing.

 

[slipknot0129]

What craving souls? Remember that nothing you mentioned? A whole bunch of craving souls ain't nothing.

Pretty much the universes cares for what kind of experience you want.

 

[p0lka]

How something can come from nothing. You know, the thing I've asked you for about a gazillion times? You can't possibly pretend to not know what I'm talking about.



Based on your opaqueness so far, yeah.

I thought that it was you that stated that something cannot come from nothing, then Baron asked why?

Repeating your claim does not make it so.

There was never a time where there was nothing. You need to brush up on your physics courses because you can't get 'something' from 'nothing'. The universe is based on something even if that's just point quantum fluctuations.

Then baron posted

What physical principle proves that?

you know the crack, if you make a positive claim then you have to explain and give the evidence why.

 

[The Man]

Pretty much the universes cares for what kind of experience you want.

So it cared before it "came from nothing" about those craving souls that wouldn't be, well, nothing anyway? Caring universe, craving souls, your "nothing" is evidently just anything but nothing.

 

[slipknot0129]

So it cared before it "came from nothing" about those craving souls that wouldn't be, well, nothing anyway? Caring universe, craving souls, your "nothing" is evidently just anything but nothing.

It's a magical universe we live in, where anything is possible.

 

[The Man]

Apparently so magical that we were living in it before it came from the nothing that wasn't nothing.




I hate to think that your were being this directly self-contradictory without even trying.

 

[Kid Eager]

Apparently so magical that we were living in it before it came from the nothing that wasn't nothing.

I hate to think that your were being this directly self-contradictory without even trying.

I think you're talking to a bot.

 

[The Man]

I think you're talking to a bot.

That's OK, I fix robots. They talk to me all freak'n day. Mostly telling me 'Oh please come fix me, I'm broken'. At least some of the time though, some of the better ones can even tell you what's wrong with them.

 

[Craig4]

It's a magical universe we live in, where anything is possible.

Not magical but certainly amazing. Sadly, you are not going to put the effort into appreciating how amazing because you settle for your unimportant, meaningless fiction.

 

[Belz...]

Can you two just remind the rest of us who was on which side please?

Dave

I think I started out on the left side and baron on the right, though after all this dancing, I've lost count.

 

[Belz...]

Our souls craved for it to come from nothing.

If there were souls, it wasn't nothing.

 

[Belz...]

I thought that it was you that stated that something cannot come from nothing, then Baron asked why?

Then baron posted

you know the crack, if you make a positive claim then you have to explain and give the evidence why.

It's a negative claim based on the lack of evidence or argument in favour of the positive one. Like "there is no god".

 

[baron]

It's a negative claim based on the lack of evidence or argument in favour of the positive one. Like "there is no god".

You mean aside from the huge volume of scientific literature, some of which I've referenced, and the explicit statements from world-leading scientists? I even recommended a book dedicated to explaining specifically how such a thing might be possible, a recommendation that you ignored. Have you read what Hawking says about de Sitter universes? Have you read what Krauss, Tegmark, Greene, etc. say on the subject? Why not?

 

[Belz...]

You mean aside from the huge volume of scientific literature, some of which I've referenced, and the explicit statements from world-leading scientists? I even recommended a book dedicated to explaining specifically how such a thing might be possible, a recommendation that you ignored. Have you read what Hawking says about de Sitter universes? Have you read what Krauss, Tegmark, Greene, etc. say on the subject? Why not?

You might have missed it in your haste to continue to be unpleasant, but I did say "evidence". I'm not talking about opinions.

How's that description of a nothing-to-something mechanism going?

 

[baron]

You might have missed it in your haste to continue to be unpleasant, but I did say "evidence". I'm not talking about opinions.

So you don't even need to read what the world-leading physicists say about physics because it's 'just opinion' and you know better than they do. I did get that impression but it's good to have it clarified.

How's that description of a nothing-to-something mechanism going?

Everybody reading this thread will note that not once have you put forward a shred of evidence for your own claims, whilst I have justified mine repeatedly. You've even been told this by multiple posters but still you persist, going so far as to state that when you make a claim it requires no evidence because it's just 'logical'.

 

[Belz...]

So you don't even need to read what the world-leading physicists say about physics because it's 'just opinion' and you know better than they do.

Rule of "so". I never said anything like it.

Everybody reading this thread will note that not once have you put forward a shred of evidence for your own claims, whilst I have justified mine repeatedly.

Don't pretend to speak for other people. You already fail miserably when you speak for me.

You've even been told this by multiple posters

And another lie. You just can't help yourself, can you?

I asked you multiple times to stop making this about me or you. You have "justified" your claims zero times, and at least I've provided a mechanism for mine, and a direct quote from Hawking. You've done only half of that.

You do know that we can go back and read your posts, right?

 

[baron]

Rule of "so". I never said anything like it.



Don't pretend to speak for other people. You already fail miserably when you speak for me.



And another lie. You just can't help yourself, can you?

I asked you multiple times to stop making this about me or you. You have "justified" your claims zero times, and at least I've provided a mechanism for mine, and a direct quote from Hawking.

The following quote is literally the only piece of evidence you have provided for your multiple bizarre claims:

The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year.

And if you think the above quote is "a mechanism" and "evidence" that "something cannot come from nothing", which you clearly do as you just said so, then I don't even know what to say. Perhaps you can explain why you entertain such an idea (although something tells me that you won't write one word of explanation).