6 ms·

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 [video]

54 points by drx 16y ago

kranner 16y ago
Bah, I read 'AAI' as 'AAAI' in my morning pre-coffee blurriness and was in eager anticipation of an AI talk on simulations and world-building, or something. Would have made more sense on HN.
d0mine 16y ago
It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics. You are all stardust. You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode. So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today. </quote>
- aufreak3 16y ago
  Beautiful quote from the talk. Nevertheless, this still shows attachment to the "matter" that he himself says seems irrelevant to the universe as we've now come to understand it. About 30% in dark matter, about 70% in Nothing. Matter is just "all the rest < 1%". So are we matter or not?
crazydiamond 16y ago
Very interesting. However, other "religions" such as Buddhism and Hinduism have spoken experientially of Nothing, and the universe arising out of Nothing. This has been misunderstood/misinterpreted as "nihilism" by the west. Refer "Ashtavakra Gita" and ancient text, for example.
- pavs 16y ago
  This reminds me of Infinite monkey theorem. There are so many religion disciplines with so many diverse views on so many things that someone from somewhere will point to an obscure reference to a religion and argue "See this religion also talked about this 1000s of years ago and science just discovered it now". And lets forget overwhelming majority of the religious reference that science obliterates. So, lets say tomorrow, we discover with definite evidence that the universe did actually came out of something, instead of nothing (which we don't know yet for sure as krauss pointed out), most religious people will forget about this reference made in Buddhism and Hinduism to proclaim "Science validates us", but instead will argue "Science doesn't know everything". Please note that this is not what I am saying your personal position is, just making a general observation of religion sometimes looking for validation from science, only when it fits their world-view.
  - chrischen 16y ago
    Buddhism isn't really a religion like Christianity is. There are no faith-based assumptions in Buddhism and it makes no claim to anything you can't reason yourself independently (as far as I know). I think you should read up on it a bit before lumping it with traditional religions. I don't think your infinite monkey theorem applies to Buddhism because it doesn't have prophecies (afaik) or literal descriptions of how the universe was created. In fact, based on what I reAd I don't think buddhists even worship a god. A Buddha seems to be just a description of a state of spiritual enlightenment. And a trait with most religions is that adherence needs to be exclusive from other religions. From what I learned from the simpsons, buddhists are allowed to practice other religions. That's another sign Buddhism isn't just another branch of Christianity.
    - pavs 16y ago
      > Buddhism isn't really a religion like Christianity is. ... > I think you should read up on it a bit before lumping it with traditional religions. I didn't really say that or implied that or say anything that's specific to buddhism or any religion.
  - aufreak3 16y ago
    And lets forget overwhelming majority of the religious reference that science obliterates. This is actually funny. Science works by obliterating ... itself. Newton's law of gravity is wrong. That certainly doesn't discredit Newton. Its ok in science to be wrong or right about something. So why should a different rule apply to religions. I always take the opposite side of the argument :)
    - pavs 16y ago
      I hope you are joking. If not, you should know that science is not the opposite of religion. Non-belief (or atheism) is the opposite of religion. Scientific process is often used to disqualify religious nonsense. Its like saying why should a different rule apply to Hitler when I enjoy eating strawberry ice-cream? Absolutely makes no sense.
aufreak3 16y ago
I have something of an awe for atheists. They seem to have a clearer idea of "God" than the rest because they clearly don't believe it .. or He or She or I dunno .. but they seem to. I liked the ending note on humility where he presented a scenario where he thinks falsifiable science could end up not figuring out the truth about the universe because the inhabitants won't be able to access a galaxy other than their own.
porter 16y ago
Forgive my naivete, I am watching the video now but won't be able to finish it tonight. Could someone please explain to me how the universe came from nothing? Isn't that like saying that something both is and isn't at the same time and in the same sense?
spicymeatball 16y ago
I found this lecture to be very interesting, but I was disappointed in all the jabs against religion (even though I'm an atheist myself). The information he presented about how a flat universe could come from nothing is thought-provoking. I would love to read further discussion about the content-- for instance, the implications of an ever-expanding universe and future societies clueless to the presence of other galaxies. Instead, people are focusing on it as a video about atheism, which really occupies less than 1% of the video here. I'm aware this lecture took place at an atheism convention, but I don't find anti-theism to be very constructive anyway. You can be a skeptic and an atheist without making disdainful remarks about the belief system of others. Engaging in open, respectful conversation is a better way of making people abandon religion anyway, if that's your goal. You know what they say about flies, honey, and vinegar. Regardless, there are religious scientists and cosmologists. Being patronizing about their beliefs discourages them from contributing. As others have said, science is not the alternative to religion, and we shouldn't treat it in such a way.

54 points by drx 16y ago

Bah, I read 'AAI' as 'AAAI' in my morning pre-coffee blurriness and was in eager anticipation of an AI talk on simulations and world-building, or something. Would have made more sense on HN.

d0mine 16y ago

It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics. You are all stardust. You couldn't be here if stars hadn't exploded. Because the elements, the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution weren't created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars. And the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode. So forget Jesus. The stars died so you could be here today. </quote>

aufreak3 16y ago
Beautiful quote from the talk. Nevertheless, this still shows attachment to the "matter" that he himself says seems irrelevant to the universe as we've now come to understand it. About 30% in dark matter, about 70% in Nothing. Matter is just "all the rest < 1%". So are we matter or not?

crazydiamond 16y ago

Very interesting. However, other "religions" such as Buddhism and Hinduism have spoken experientially of Nothing, and the universe arising out of Nothing. This has been misunderstood/misinterpreted as "nihilism" by the west. Refer "Ashtavakra Gita" and ancient text, for example.

pavs 16y ago
This reminds me of Infinite monkey theorem. There are so many religion disciplines with so many diverse views on so many things that someone from somewhere will point to an obscure reference to a religion and argue "See this religion also talked about this 1000s of years ago and science just discovered it now". And lets forget overwhelming majority of the religious reference that science obliterates. So, lets say tomorrow, we discover with definite evidence that the universe did actually came out of something, instead of nothing (which we don't know yet for sure as krauss pointed out), most religious people will forget about this reference made in Buddhism and Hinduism to proclaim "Science validates us", but instead will argue "Science doesn't know everything". Please note that this is not what I am saying your personal position is, just making a general observation of religion sometimes looking for validation from science, only when it fits their world-view.
- chrischen 16y ago
  Buddhism isn't really a religion like Christianity is. There are no faith-based assumptions in Buddhism and it makes no claim to anything you can't reason yourself independently (as far as I know). I think you should read up on it a bit before lumping it with traditional religions. I don't think your infinite monkey theorem applies to Buddhism because it doesn't have prophecies (afaik) or literal descriptions of how the universe was created. In fact, based on what I reAd I don't think buddhists even worship a god. A Buddha seems to be just a description of a state of spiritual enlightenment. And a trait with most religions is that adherence needs to be exclusive from other religions. From what I learned from the simpsons, buddhists are allowed to practice other religions. That's another sign Buddhism isn't just another branch of Christianity.
  - pavs 16y ago
    > Buddhism isn't really a religion like Christianity is. ... > I think you should read up on it a bit before lumping it with traditional religions. I didn't really say that or implied that or say anything that's specific to buddhism or any religion.
- aufreak3 16y ago
  And lets forget overwhelming majority of the religious reference that science obliterates. This is actually funny. Science works by obliterating ... itself. Newton's law of gravity is wrong. That certainly doesn't discredit Newton. Its ok in science to be wrong or right about something. So why should a different rule apply to religions. I always take the opposite side of the argument :)
  - pavs 16y ago
    I hope you are joking. If not, you should know that science is not the opposite of religion. Non-belief (or atheism) is the opposite of religion. Scientific process is often used to disqualify religious nonsense. Its like saying why should a different rule apply to Hitler when I enjoy eating strawberry ice-cream? Absolutely makes no sense.

aufreak3 16y ago

I have something of an awe for atheists. They seem to have a clearer idea of "God" than the rest because they clearly don't believe it .. or He or She or I dunno .. but they seem to. I liked the ending note on humility where he presented a scenario where he thinks falsifiable science could end up not figuring out the truth about the universe because the inhabitants won't be able to access a galaxy other than their own.

porter 16y ago

Forgive my naivete, I am watching the video now but won't be able to finish it tonight. Could someone please explain to me how the universe came from nothing? Isn't that like saying that something both is and isn't at the same time and in the same sense?

spicymeatball 16y ago

I found this lecture to be very interesting, but I was disappointed in all the jabs against religion (even though I'm an atheist myself). The information he presented about how a flat universe could come from nothing is thought-provoking. I would love to read further discussion about the content-- for instance, the implications of an ever-expanding universe and future societies clueless to the presence of other galaxies. Instead, people are focusing on it as a video about atheism, which really occupies less than 1% of the video here. I'm aware this lecture took place at an atheism convention, but I don't find anti-theism to be very constructive anyway. You can be a skeptic and an atheist without making disdainful remarks about the belief system of others. Engaging in open, respectful conversation is a better way of making people abandon religion anyway, if that's your goal. You know what they say about flies, honey, and vinegar. Regardless, there are religious scientists and cosmologists. Being patronizing about their beliefs discourages them from contributing. As others have said, science is not the alternative to religion, and we shouldn't treat it in such a way.