The question itself misleading in some ways. Every answer to a science question like "Why does X" is always answered by recourse to something in the universe. That is, all questions in science have an answer (even if we don't know it yet) that is always expressed in terms of something that's within the universe.

So "Why does the universe exist" cannot have a scientific answer or explanation because the things we need to use in an answer are the very things we are striving to explain the existence of.

 

 

 

Because Chaos exists....

 

Because Chaos exists....

Did someone call me?

 

 

 

Isnt the current theory that things can pop into existence without any known reason except maybe a quantum field?
Havent read up on this lately.

 

Isnt the current theory that things can pop into existence without any known reason except maybe a quantum field?
Havent read up on this lately.

Sure, but we need to know the time-frame.

It's possible a 1959 pink Cadillac could materialize in my driveway if all the probabilities of matter in the universe where to happen. It would take longer than the age of the known universe multiplied upon itself to happen but it's 'possible'.

 

Sure, but we need to know the time-frame.

It's possible a 1959 pink Cadillac could materialize in my driveway if all the probabilities of matter in the universe where to happen. It would take longer than the age of the known universe multiplied upon itself to happen but it's 'possible'.

View attachment 273245

Of all the colors for a Cadillac you could've chosen...

 

Of all the colors for a Cadillac you could've chosen...

Cadillac Pink is a hard to generate color.

 

It's just a reminder that we dont know everything yet and maybe we never will, or depend on AI more and more.
Check out the post about the "New Physics" found by AI recently.

 

It's just a reminder that we dont know everything yet and maybe we never will, or depend on AI more and more.
Check out the post about the "New Physics" found by AI recently.

You can do better than that.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/...r-than-the-speed-of-light.186645/post-1753267

That's not what happened. An alternative description of old physics was the 'result'. Maybe it will provide some additional ways to restructure old problems but it's not actually "New Physics".

https://www.sciencealert.com/ai-has-discovered-alternate-physics-on-its-own

After being shown videos of physical phenomena on Earth, the AI didn't rediscover the current variables we use; instead, it actually came up with new variables to explain what it saw.

To be clear, this doesn't mean our current physics are flawed or that there's a better fit model to explain the world around us. (Einstein's laws have proved incredibly robust.) But those laws could only exist because they were built on the back of a pre-existing 'language' of theory and principles established by centuries of tradition.

Given an alternative timeline where other minds tackled the same problems with a slightly different perspective, would we still frame the mechanics that explain our Universe in the same way?

 

I hope most of us have already seen this, but in case it was overlooked,

 

I hope most of us have already seen this, but in case it was overlooked,

He's a great guy.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/the-irreversibility-of-time.168350/post-1498370

You see, there’s an inherent uncertainty between momentum and position for every particle, requiring that if you know one of those traits to a certain degree of precision, the other one becomes inherently uncertain so that the product of the two is always finite and non-zero. Lawrence Krauss, in his book The Physics of Star Trek, correctly identifies that one would need some type of hypothetical “Heisenberg Compensator” to account for this, which seems to violate the fundamental rules of quantum mechanics. When the Star Trek creators came up with the idea of Heisenberg Compensators, they were asked how they worked. Their response? "They work very well, thank you." Unfortunately, this is one case where no matter how far technology advances, it will always be bound by the laws of nature.

 

Krauss is frequently in error. He is often disparaging to philosophers despite the fact that much of what he talks about is philosophy or philosophical statements.

I find he is a poor presenter of science, what scientific inquiry is, the nature of scientific reasoning and so on.

He is best described as an advocate of "scientism" rather than science, IMHO.

 

He's a great guy.
https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/the-irreversibility-of-time.168350/post-1498370

Careful: https://www.theatlantic.com/science...exual-misconduct-me-too-arizona-state/573844/

 

Careful: https://www.theatlantic.com/science...exual-misconduct-me-too-arizona-state/573844/

Please, we're talking about his physics. I could say much the same for physicist Richard Feynman.
https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/surely-youre-a-creep-mr-feynman-mcneill

or Neil deGrasse Tyson.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/arts/design/neil-degrasse-tyson-keeps-job.html

 

Please, we're talking about his physics. I could say much the same for physicist Richard Feynman.
https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/surely-youre-a-creep-mr-feynman-mcneill

or Neil deGrasse Tyson.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/arts/design/neil-degrasse-tyson-keeps-job.html

No, this should be mentioned at least, but as you said we are discussing physics, I accept that, you are right to point that out. My comments about Krauss included his disdain for philosophy without realizing he makes philosophical, non-scientific statements regularly when he debates.

 

No, this should be mentioned at least, but as you said we are discussing physics, I accept that, you are right to point that out. My comments about Krauss included his disdain for philosophy without realizing he makes philosophical, non-scientific statements regularly when he debates.

He's selling his popularization of science brand. We all know that. I like Krauss.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-consolation-of-philos/