Right. So it wouldn’t exist. Therefore we have the universe that can exist.
Technically space time isnt ever empty
Is that how nature works, everything that can exist must exist no matter how improbable?
Plus, we don’t know what most of it even consists of, we can’t find it.
Possibly. But the notion that it is more improbable for something to not exist, so therefore it should exist is a contradiction. We simply dont know if our universe is just one of infinite universes constantly arising out of some infinite field. We already know that “empty” space produces particles and anti particles from a vacuum
Hmm, do you choose the minority position of scientists for all issues or only for those issues that line up with your politics?
Extraordinary measures call for extraordinary proofs.
1 Like
It would be nice to have some “nothing” to study. It would be interesting.
Measures? Si you accept human responsibility for global warming?
Thanks you just made me spend the last half hour reading this and the comment section 
What? I accept that the people who do are calling for extraordinary efforts to address it. Therefore, I call for extraordinary proof of their assertions. Not that I think man is capable of rising to the occasion if they are right mind you.
Good article. I was introduced to the physics of nothing via Dr Laurence Krauss. Fascinating stuff, right?
The measures is a separate argument from whether AGW is valid or not.
Yeah… science is a democracy . Tell him!
Do you research each and every aspect of science to see if you personally agree with their findings…or…do you accept majority opinion most of the time?
You can’t do it all, so when faced with that reality does it make more sense to join the majority of scientists or the minority?
What are you talking about?
I think we can all acknowledge that there are many areas of science that we are not intimately familiar with and unable to render judgements based on our own knowledge.
That lack of knowledge might be due to to inadequacies in being able to understand the science, a lack of access to the details of th science, or insufficient time or interest to educate ourselves in a specific topic. Or it can be a combination of these.
Faced with that reality, we must make decisions based on something. I prefer joining the majority opinion of scientists instead of politics.
For example, I personally have not derived E=mc^2. Most physicists have agreed with its veracity but probably not all.
Not knowing myself, it’s probably best to go with the majority instead of some vocal minority.
What do you think?
All too often, the majority of scientists have been wrong. Besides, that’s not how science works. Going with the majority is political.
You don’t know how science works.
