zero energy

[Athetotheist]

It's argued that a universe can come into being from absolute nothingness because a balance between positive and negative energy is maintained, making the universe's energy "zero" (I've argued elsewhere that the "zero energy" argument is flawed because net-zero energy doesn't mean no energy).

But let's assume for the sake of argument that the zero-energy argument is correct in meaning that there is no energy in the universe. Some materialists have said that they would be convinced of the existence of a creator if some evidence were woven into the fundamental makeup of the universe and could be discovered mathematically. What if the zero-energy equation, as it's interpreted by materialists, is that evidence?

If there is no energy, what's the universe made of? That question may seem simplistic, but it's the question we have to ask once we're painted into a zero-energy corner. Without energy there is nothing [materially] but nothingness, and if the zero-energy equation forces us to conclude that the universe consists of pure nothingness because zero energy leaves nothing but pure nothingness for the universe to consist of, then we're left with a non-physical universe since there's nothing physical to make it up (let's face it----when you rule out energy as something to comprise your universe, your remaining choices are severely limited). So if the mathematical way out of explaining why the energy of the universe exists is to show that its energy doesn't exist, doesn't that cause a bigger problem for materialism than it solves?

[Tcg]

It's argued that a universe can come into being from absolute nothingness...

Argued by whom?


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

It's argued that a universe can come into being from absolute nothingness...

Argued by whom?

Lawrence Krauss, for one.

(3:05-3:55)

[Difflugia]

But let's assume for the sake of argument that the zero-energy argument is correct in meaning that there is no energy in the universe.

Then the argument is flawed because there's energy in the universe. There are reasons for thinking that it all adds up to zero, but it sounds like you're trying to change the argument from zero energy globally into zero energy locally. Is that what you're claiming? Or is it something else?

[Athetotheist]

But let's assume for the sake of argument that the zero-energy argument is correct in meaning that there is no energy in the universe.

Then the argument is flawed because there's energy in the universe. There are reasons for thinking that it all adds up to zero, but it sounds like you're trying to change the argument from zero energy globally into zero energy locally. Is that what you're claiming? Or is it something else?

I'm not the one doing the arguing. Here's Krauss again:

(3:00-3:30)


Since he's arguing that a universe can come from absolute nothing, as in the first clip I posted, what point is he trying to make about the universe's total energy being zero?

[Difflugia]

I'm not the one doing the arguing. Here's Krauss again:

You and Krauss aren't saying the same thing.

Since he's arguing that a universe can come from absolute nothing,

Yes.

as in the first clip I posted, what point is he trying to make about the universe's total energy being zero?

He's not, nor is he saying that the universe contains no energy, either. He's just saying that it came out of nothing. You said that must mean something to do with zero energy, either net-zero energy or something else. I happen to know that Krauss is a proponent of zero net energy, but I guess I incorrectly assumed that you knew that, too.

In the clip, Krauss said that the universe appeared out of nothing. Something that you're concluding from that one statement is wrong.

[Tcg]

...doesn't that cause a bigger problem for materialism than it solves?

Given that materialism isn't based on Kraus' opinion, this presents no problem at all for materialism.

What would be a problem for materialism is verifiable evidence that there is something other than material. Got something like that? Of course you don't or you wouldn't be trying to make a mountain out of this nothing.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #6]

In the clip, Krauss said that the universe appeared out of nothing.

....which is the material proceeding from the immaterial, meaning that nothing material is its source.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Tcg in post #7]

Given that materialism isn't based on Kraus' opinion, this presents no problem at all for materialism.

What would be a problem for materialism is verifiable evidence that there is something other than material. Got something like that? Of course you don't or you wouldn't be trying to make a mountain out of this nothing.

In response to the assertion that the universe couldn't come from nothing, Krauss refers to "supernatural shenanigans that seem to violate the laws of physics". The focus on "zero-energy" seems to be an attempt to get a universe from nothing by doing an end-run around the 1st law of thermodynamics' statement that energy cannot be created, essentially sneaking in ex-nihilo creation on a technicality.

As for evidence of something other than material, you don't have many other options when you're starting off with nothing material.

[Difflugia]

In response to the assertion that the universe couldn't come from nothing, Krauss refers to "supernatural shenanigans that seem to violate the laws of physics". The focus on "zero-energy" seems to be an attempt to get a universe from nothing by doing an end-run around the 1st law of thermodynamics' statement that energy cannot be created, essentially sneaking in ex-nihilo creation on a technicality.

That's neither an end-run nor merely a technicality. The exact way that the First Law appears to hold at the quantum level is exactly the way Krauss expects it to be at the universal level: zero net energy. Quantum events can create particles as long as corresponding antiparticles appear at the same time. This is considered to satisfy the First Law. When we see it, it's just for very small spaces and short durations. The same uncertainty math works for very large and very long as long as the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe]net energy[/quote] is zero, again, satisfying the First Law.

The key here is that the same math that works inside our universe is consistent with the universe popping into existence on its own. That might not be what happened, but some simple expression of logic isn't going to affect it. Anything that would logically disprove the "from nothing" universe has the same effect on quantum physics and at this point, quantum physics is pretty robust in terms of measurements aligning with theory. There are certain physical constraints on such a universe, so there are measurements that in principle could disprove it, but nobody's been able to do any yet.

As for evidence of something other than material, you don't have many other options when you're starting off with nothing material.

Exactly. Nothing and then something both fits our observations and satisfies Occam's Razor. No Jesus, no strings, no branes.