X-Message-Number: 17910
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:17:33 -0500
From: david pizer <>
Subject: Even more on Something/Nothing & 

Here are my follow up questions or comments on this thread.
Thanks for the good comments.



>From: "Joseph W. Morgan" <>
>Laymen have difficulty with modern physics because they attempt to apply
intuition rather then logic and mathematics to reality.  Our intuition does
not suffice. Our intuition comes from our everyday experiences in the realm
of sizes and speeds where quantum and relativistic effects are not noticeable.

I'm sure that there is some truth to this.  On the other hand, I have seen
physics experts being reversed - often.  Some of Newton is replaced by
Einstein, who is replaced by several others.  Perhaps in the final
theories, physics will be explained by things that make sense to out
intuition?  Perhaps, at this early time in human exploration, we don't know
how to explain physics in terms of intuition - yet?

Philosophy of science has showed me that so far there are no perfect
theories, just ones that work best for the time being, until one that works
better comes along.

>Much of modern physics is counter-intuitive yet theoretically and
experimentally verified.  Some examples are:
>  a.. Matter and energy are equivalent.

Yes but matter has properties that energy does not, and energy has
properties that matter does not.  So they may be equivalent in some sense
of physics but can you say that matter is identical to energy?  If so how
would you explain their different properties?

>  b.. A vacuum is not the total absence of matter and energy.

This clears up some questions for me.  Do you know what the concept of
nothing is?  How would one explain the concept of nothing?


>From: "Lawrence O'Reilly" <>


>One of the following must be true, either:
>1. Something came from nothing   or
>2. Something always existed.
>From a common sense point of view both of these seem absurd yet one is
necessarily >fact.  Thus using a common sense point of view as to what is
absurd and hence >impossible is clearly deficient as a means of proof.

I do not understand why postulating that "something has always existed" is
Or put another way, why is it not a common sense view?

1.	The only ways something can exist is to be created or have always existed.
2.	Something cannot be created from nothing.
3.	Something exists.
4.	Therefore, Something has always existed.

(You could postulate God here, but that would not explain where God came

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17910