3 ms·
> The author TOTALLY misses the point [...] OTOH, you're failing to comprehend what the key word - nothing - means :-) Look here: > how if there was at one po
by avz 6y ago
> The author TOTALLY misses the point [...]
OTOH, you're failing to comprehend what the key word - nothing - means :-) Look here:
> how if there was at one point nothing, how is there now something?
See, you're imagining two points in time. Some stuff exists in the second moment, but not the first. However, since you're saying "one point" and "now" you are assuming that time exists in both instants. But if time exists then this is already something and not nothing. The true nothing excludes time, space and all the junk in it. Nothing is really just
- mmazing 6y agoI've always thought of space-time as a convenience for modern thought about how the world works. We can think about the fact that while we look at a distant galaxy 2 million light years away, that galaxy is in fact at this current moment, doing its own thing and we won't know about it until that light arrives here. Since we can't observe that galaxy's current state until another 2 million years, it's not very useful to think about it in those terms. Similarly, we can imagine a time when there was absolutely nothing. It doesn't make sense, but we can imagine it. We can then imagine what it would take to go from that state into a state where there is matter and other laws of physics and wonder how we went from one state to another. Then you might suppose that there was never a state of nothingness, and then you might wonder how that could be. I feel that the author fails to address these basic points of the question "why is there something rather than nothing", so it's hard to move on from that, personally.