When Did the Laws of the Universe Come Into Being?

Hallow: Get 3 months free at hallow.com/Jordan
Watch the full podcast with Lawrence Krauss • From the Beginning to ...
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: bit.ly/3KrWbS8
Ep.182
// LINKS //
All socials: linktr.ee/drjo...
Website: jordanbpeterso...
Events: jordanbpeterso...
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
Telegram: t.me/DrJordanP...
Newsletter: mailchi.mp/jor...
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterso...
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyse...
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterso...
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterso...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterso...
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus

[@wildolive7758]

Boy, I never thought atheist possess more faith than any religion group. Believing in time and chance when nothing (including time and whatever definition of chance is) to create this complex life is really a remarkable feat of faith!

[@juvinilebud]

It’s no different from believing God exists without explanation

[@alistaircrookes5825]

Why are you ignoring what they are talking about? We are not concerned with faith here, but physical questions. It does not matter if we have faith or not, we can see what is out there in telescopes, make observations, do mathematical physics and make predictions and compare them with observations. It has nothing to do with faith whatsoever.

[@wildolive7758]

Science has to do with empirical and repeatable data. As of today no one has replicate a "big bang" without a human mind or other created physical matter intervention, therefore their arguments are more metaphysical than scientific. Using abstract mathematics such as "infinite numbers" begs the question in many levels.

[@alistaircrookes5825]

What do any of these comments have to do with what is discussed in the video? This has nothing to do with the video. You people will make anything into a God issue or an atheist issue when dealing with someone like Lawrence, just because he is a famous atheist. All you people want to do is argue about atheism! I would say to any Christians who are arguing in these comments, this is not very Christian, is it?

[@arm8636]

The fact that you cannot explain something doesn't necessarily mean that there is a god though....

[@trogglepope9792]

After just a few minutes, I've heard enough to know that Lawrence Krauss is what happens when your intelligence exceeds your wisdom by far too much. He sounds like a spiritually blind fool compared to someone like John Lennox.

[@Yesica1993]

Has JP ever interviewed John Lennox? Now there's something I'd like to see.

[@regpharvey]

@@Yesica1993 He has, actually. I'm sure the video is still available on this channel.

[@tbass94]

😂😂😂

[@Yesica1993]

@@regpharvey Thanks. I can't remember who's done what!

[@joeygrace2464]

'Cause there are no spiritual, there's only materialism, and that's why we don't see people flying with the power of their minds.

[@valentinobambino6728]

It would be like a reverse entropy. Instead of things falling apart by they own accord, they bloom for a precise reason.

[@pandzban4533]

The whole concept of astrophysics is reversed entropy. In that field laws of thermodynamics are being raped on daily basis. They treat stars as homogeneous ideal gas. They say nebula (cloud of gas) is collapsing on itself without work done on the system. It is perpetual motion machine :) Cosmology is a religion. It is not science. Lawrence Krauss will not tell you that. He is a believer, not scientist. We will never the origin or size of the universe.

[@dl5244]

some aspects of the data (eg. age and size) mentioned he implied a measurement, when in fact we put measurements (spectroscopy red-shift, etc) into a model of our guess of the history of the universe (a model that may be over-fit fit to the data), and then quote the model's outputs as the data.

[@johnsmithers8913]

Bingo. In my stochastic modeling course, the primary rule is you need 3 test areas. One to collect the data and define the parameters for your model. The second is to validate the model by testing it in a different area, and the third to actually use it to solve the problem. If you don't, then all you are doing is selecting measurements and values to reach a preconceived conclusion. The issue here is that there is only one universe.

[@ryanm1776]

Get Dr Stephen Myer from the Discovery Institute on to debate this guy. Dr Myer makes the best cosmological, biological, physical and mathematical arguments for intelligent design.

[@scribbler60]

Saw it happen, in person, at Univ of Toronto. Krauss obliterated Meyers. It was hard to watch, actually, because Meyers was completely out of his depth.

[@joeygrace2464]

Materialism, wll always win.

[@maxwell8758]

If you think that, then you are a fool. Stephen Meyer is objectively wrong and ignorant. Intelligent design is the worst argument for a designer. There is no argument for it. And Meyer himself is a fraud not equipped to understand anything.

[@brandonmacey964]

@@scribbler60it’s because krauss is a prick and better at debating then actually thinking deeply and openly

[@scribbler60]

@@brandonmacey964 Well, I guess your insightful observation and deeply-researched quantitative analyses certainly trumps everything else. Please, do share more of your in-depth knowledge. The world is waiting in eager anticipation of the sharing of your immense intellect.

[@RilkeForum]

Lawrence Krauss believes in the current Standard Model of Cosmology slightly too much - there are still many anomalies and questions, and dark energy and dark matter are very dominant in that model without having been proven at all to actually „exist“ outside the model (as particles or fields). - Respect to you Mr Peterson for following along in this complicated discussion so well and asking very challenging questions. Because I wanted to answer similar questions myself, I studied physics back then - but you are at a very high level just like that 👍👋 thanks for your podcast and videos

[@Ruby_Villain]

Our human eyes and instruments are DESIGNED to limit our understanding of whatever’s out there. We would not be able to be tried proplerly and learn/level up, if we knew everything, as spirits of energy.

[@FlawlessP401]

​@@gyrate98 what she said is literally accurate. Our senses are evolved to see less not more. We see what is necessary not what is real

[@Ruby_Villain]

@@gyrate98 Please stop spamming my comment, and everyone’s else’s, for that matter. I will report you.

[@flaviaboa9822]

​@@Ruby_VillainI'll report you for reporting her. Let people express themselves as you just did. You don't own the discussion or the platform. That's a very censorship mindset, trying to silence people and own the space

[@flaviaboa9822]

Plus she was agreeing with you 🤡 Are you only seeking for attention and it bothers you that she has almost as many likes as you? I don't see any reasonable/logical reason, So it might be emotional. Jealousy so to speak

[@Yaas_ok123]

Nonsense. Nothing comes from nothing, period.

[@TheMoopMonster]

Then why, how is there something? And why is it so magnificent?

[@cwx8]

Your viewpoint makes you incapable of understanding the beginning of the everything you are.

[@Yaas_ok123]

@@TheMoopMonster Only mind, outside the system, who wanted to create all, makes sense. That's God.

[@TheMoopMonster]

@Yaas_ok123 And so where did this mind come from? By what process, since there are no relate or relationships in the void, does it "think"? What is the substrate or form by which it achieved being? How did it create anything "actual" from absolute nothing? If it has always existed, and has thought of every possible process, why is it thinking about us right now?

[@Yaas_ok123]

@@TheMoopMonster We are unable understand concept of God. He is uncreated, timeless, outside of universe, but able to enter inside. Love is his character and maybe mainreason to start to create the universe with people. John Lennox and Stephen Meyer articulate more.

[@Aevee_noob]

So many comments attempting to assert statements about the nature of the universe solely based on your limited, human interpertation. Sorry but the universe doesn't necessarily care if you think "something can't come out of nothing" just because you can't wrap your head around it.

[@bobinthewest8559]

There is no such thing as “nothing”. The underlying fundamental, is consciousness. Consciousness is energy. Energy is transmutable, into matter. The rest is history.

[@davidgaviria6230]

Nigga you got it!!🎉

[@Jussiesmullet]

Imagine an intelligent life form on the edge of our visible universe, observing parts of the universe that we can not ever see. We see the universe from the center of our visible feild.

[@lantose]

I do not know real physics, just the practical physics we generally learn from school and life, but I can’t quite comprehend us being somewhat in the center! The big bang theory could theoretically only be in one specific direction from our planet, so which way do we point the telescope to go directly back to the source? Or do they have some idea already based on the colors they have seen in numerous different directions? (Probably should have put this in comments!)

[@RonanRox-wk2vl]

It could be that the universe is such, that if you went in one direction, indefinitely, away from earth and into open space......let's call it "south" for the sake of a mental experiment, though there's no such in it.... that you'd emerge from "north" over time.... So, basically moving out and away from earth you still come back to it...from a diametrically opposite end.... ....... Don't know why am writing it here...

[@DarkoFitCoach]

​@@lantosewhere did u gather we are in the center? We are not

[@lantose]

@@DarkoFitCoach Probably should have worded that differently because I knew our galaxy wasn’t in the middle, however, I knew as explained and confirmed by this physicist and JP that whichever direction you move our circle of view, you are limited in all directions to the edge of what mankind can see, but perhaps I missed the explanation as to the direction of the exact source of a big bang theory if they ever did mention that, and how they found it. It’s hard for me at times to keep up with a genius or two! I’m getting up there in age and have always played sports, but loved science!

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

It’s good to think of it as limit of causality based on the speed of light. To get information beyond that causal light cone, you need an observer with a different causal light cone to share the information. This is similarly true with the first cause of universe (big bang), to get any data about its cause or spontaneous creation we’d need an external observer. You could make speculations based on something like field theory, but nothing more substantial.

[@mmisiaszek]

Penrose got the point right. When there is no matter there is no clocks so spacetime looks like a point as we cant have relation between time and space dimensions.

[@Rsvohi]

It arose (and continues to arise) from “no thing” as opposed to “nothing”. The closest it seem we can come to describing that “no thing” is infinite, unmanifest potential; Bohm’s “implicate, enfolded” order.

[@geovanijarrett6071]

Nice distinction

[@Diallelus]

Krauss is equivocating and he knows it. He says the word “nothing” but he doesn’t mean it in the strict philosophical sense, meaning . It is logically impossible for something to spawn from nothing in this sense.

[@sigigle]

Exactly, every philosopher worth his salt should cringe when Lawrence uses the term "nothing" to refer to things like a field of quantum energy fluctuations, aka definitely not nothing.

[@RobDelacruz-w6d]

That guy is incredibly dense. How can ANYONE whether religious or atheist or agnostic think that everything "sprang from nothing" !

[@scribbler60]

Because that's where the evidence leads. May make no sense to us, but if all the evidence points that way, then, like it or not, that's the way it is. If Krauss was just a single wiseacre on the fringes, he could easily be written off as a crank. But he's not. Hawking, Tyson, Mack, Penrose, Green, plenty of others who have been studying this for decades all tend towards the same conclusion. Disagree? Fantastic. Science is built upon disagreements. So get your PhD, come up with your hypothesis, do an in-depth literature review, conduct your experiments, get them published and peer reviewed, and if you're correct, collect your Nobel Prize.

[@spindoctor6385]

Much more reasonable to assume that some being, magically just like us cast a spell. And let's not even ask where he came from.

[@spindoctor6385]

You obviously can not see the forrest because of all of those damn trees in your way. I do not differentiate between Christianity and any other 'origin story' from any other mythology. Christianity has no special place above Hinduism or Buddhism or whatever some witch doctor came up with in some jungle somewhere when it comes to meta physics. If calling the verbal incantation of "let there be light" equivalent to a spell is some kind of straw man then what exactly is it that Christians believe? Do you not believe that your God created the world? How is that not akin to a spell?

[@maxwell8758]

You don’t understand physics or anything he said.

[@maxwell8758]

No he is not. You don’t understand physics.

[@JakobusMaximus]

"The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause."

[@notloki3377]

you can't make an inductive argument when something only happens once.

[@Jthom88]

​@@notloki3377prove it only happened once - and that nothing outside of the system within which we are operating had any causal influence whatsoever on the posited occurrence of the big bang. I'll wait...

[@notloki3377]

​@@Jthom88 i'm not even sure what you're trying to imply here, with your broken 90 IQ logic... but my point, which i will restate, is that inductive arguments (in short, science) require at least two things. 1.) they require a pattern of the same actions. for instance, if i throw a rock into water and it makes a splash 100 times, i can assume on the 101st time that it will also make a splash. 2.) they require an observer or measurer. the origin of the universe has neither, so obviously i can't prove anything about it and neither can you. anyway, i think it's pretty clear you're a fool who found a dictionary, so i'm not going to indulge you in any sort of argument. if you don't make a coherent point that isn't a rhetorical question i'm not responding.

[@JakobusMaximus]

@@notloki3377 Wait, so the observed laws of causality don't apply when it's related to an event you don't want questioned? That sounds an awful lot like dogma.

[@notloki3377]

@@JakobusMaximus that's literally not what I said, and I'm not sure how you could have read it that way

[@chuckchan4127]

If something can spring from nothing, then how would someone observe that nothing existed before something? Riddle me this...

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

Nobody claims to be able to observe anything before the beginning

[@chuckchan4127]

@ThatBoomerDude56 Then those same people admit they have zero proof of the Big Bang "existing from nothing." Because if you can't prove that, you also can't prove the Big Bang has always existed.

[@chuckchan4127]

@ThatBoomerDude56 Actually, Atheists do this.

[@Choco794]

Example please

[@Jgill99911]

@@chuckchan4127 when do they do that ?. You might be making stuff up like your fellow religious tards. maybe provide the context,premise and the argument before making delusional claims.

[@bluntichibanopinion7319]

Thank you Dr. Peterson for making my brain think beyond the horizon. We appreciate you.

[@megavitai]

The Latin phrase "creatio ex nihilo" means "creation out of nothing." So he aligns with the idea of a creation. On the other hand, to manufacture matter while adhering to the first law of thermodynamics, one must convert energy into matter. The real questions are: Where did this energy come from? And was there intelligence involved in this process, or was it a random event? It's interesting that he mentions the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, but he doesn't mention that it’s doing so in a highly organized manner within galaxy groups, clusters, and superclusters. Random explosions don't behave like that; they decelerate over time and are disorganized. How is that possible? They say it's because of dark energy; I prefer to call it God.

[@spindoctor6385]

The bib bang was not an explosion.

[@walterp773]

I call it dark matter

[@Jack__________]

I agree with you… if the universe were random and we are the product of the randomness, how could we trust our “random brains” to have any logic or the ability to reason. If an MRI were RANDOMLY put together… could you trust the pictures it shows? And if this randomness is ongoing (superposition of states)… how can the scientific method be trusted? How is any experiment repeatable in a RANDOM universe? We practice science because we believe that we can discover the laws of nature… and to believe that there ARE laws of nature, you must believe there exists a “Law Giver” … even if you don’t understand that kind of faith is required. The laws of nature and the Law Giver are eternal… everything that is possible now was always possible- we just needed to learn enough about material science etc to make what was always possible a reality.

[@catwoman7462]

Was there intelligence (god) involved in the process? Begging the question, where did god come from?

[@Jack__________]

@@catwoman7462 so you think you were just RANDOMLY created by the universe? So where did “YOUR creator” come from? (that’s basically the same question you just asked, if you couldn’t tell.)

[@medyk100100]

Fascinating discussion Dr. Peterson! Keep bringing great scientists so we can continue to learn more facts ❤

[@breand4]

Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

[@acunit5627]

DO you understand anything he just said? Probably not

[@breand4]

​@@acunit5627Do you understand what I wrote? Probably not.

[@acunit5627]

@breand4 Nah I do, you don't because deflecting shows you can't introspect.

[@breand4]

​@acunit5627 I don't believe that everything came from nothing, and I don't believe that life came from non-living matter all by itself. What do you believe?

[@acunit5627]

@breand4 1. No one said they believe and claim something came from nothing to be true. It's just a plausible conjecture brought up in the video and the book with modern science today. 2. No one ever talked about the emergence of life. 3. I believe that science is the best way for us to probe and question our existence and the universe, something a close minded more absurd belief like religion forever is doomed to stagnation, unless you are reformed. Then believe whatever you want to believe despite evidence.

[@R.PMcMurphy]

The problem with guys like this is they go into these circumstances with an agenda. They don't even consider anything outside of what they're looking to discover.

[@MyNameIsThe_Sun]

The agenda is the evidence. Religious beliefs aren't of any significance outside the lives of humans of a tiny slice of time

[@maxwell8758]

This is literally not the case. YOU people have an agenda. Scientists look for what if true. Theists look for what they want to be true.

[@Z1989ahmed]

Arguments need to be made

[@budnrobots2968]

for those that can’t understand the deep complexities these men are discussing, choosing to believe instead, in a God, is no more correct or incorrect, should that belief reflect the world as we know it NOW. Scientists believe we do not know everything about the world. Believers trust that we do not know gods plan. These sound the same to me. do not shun your fellow man for anything but believing we have no purpose at all. No matter what we are social creatures that can only reflect upon certain parts of our environment. If we have to come up with a story, be it completely historically accurate or not, if that story is aligned with the truth to our reality, that being of mislead social creatures constantly aiming for paradise there’s nothing wrong with it.

[@notyouraverageharleyquinnstan]

This👏

[@noxplay4906]

And the fact that that kind of faith can change someone's entire life for the better implies some sort of tangibility

[@budnrobots2968]

@@noxplay4906100% ♥️🙏

[@DarkoFitCoach]

To compare faith and science is really stupid. Jeez

[@billymahonyy]

bruv hes talking about god. god is the universe coming out of nothing and when it ends it restarts. the opening and closing of eons is god. its not a creator or thing its the infininte universe that always has and always will be . no one or thing put it here it simply is. its has nothing to do with some stupid religion we created here on earth. all that our religions are are people grasping at echos and metaphors what the true god is. we are children of the universe and hence children/the same as god.

[@Greg-xs5py]

The problem with cosmology, unlike something like engineering, is that generations of scientists could be wrong, and no one would ever know it. There’s no bridge that would collapse.

[@maxwell8758]

This is not true. Cosmology is very well understood.

[@Greg-xs5py]

@@maxwell8758 How do you know? There’s some weird mysteries substance, for instance, that is something like 97% of the universe, which is called dark matter/energy that scientists know nothing about. But to my point how would you know it’s correct? A lot of the data he speaks of has margins of error for one. But even if it didn’t how would you ever know. There’s nothing practical that it produces like a bridge that can be tested.

[@maxwell8758]

@@Greg-xs5py Cosmology has produced testable predictions and even technology. For example, nuclear energy, GPS systems, and MRI are examples of technology based off of cosmology. There are so many tests: mathematical, observational, and experimental. We know what we have is correct. We still have many questions about what else is true, but cosmology is one of them best understood fields. With all due respect you seem very ignorant on the topic, so why have an opinion about it? And as for dark matter and dark energy, we just don’t know what that stuff is yet. That is irrelevant to the idea that everything we know could be wrong. It couldn’t. We keep improving our knowledge. We know the Big Bang happened. We know black holes are real. We know neutron stars are real. Etc, etc, etc. Just because there are still many mysteries is irrelevant to the question of “how do we know what we have now is right? Understand?

[@Greg-xs5py]

@@maxwell8758 ok, obviously you are ignorant of this topic. What cosmological discovery lead to the mri? GPS relies on GR, yes. I’m not anti-physics. Cosmology is based on GR, yes, but should not be confused with GR. There’s this proclivity to expand from what we know to what we don’t know. It’s called hubris. Nuclear energy has nothing to do with cosmology. Basic theories were developed before the detection of cosmic microwave radiation, for example. Explain to me what cosmological discovery was required for nuclear energy.

[@maxwell8758]

@@Greg-xs5py I am not ignorant on this topic. I am actually in a doctoral program for theoretical physics. First of all, the discovery of magnetic resonance came from physics and astrophysics because physicists discovered that atoms of different masses radiate slightly different when exposed to the same EM field when studying gas clouds and stars in space. This discovery was of nuclear magnetic resonance. This was later used to invent the MRI. Studying space and gas clouds and advanced physics literally lead to that invention. Secondly, GR is the foundational field of cosmology, so it's use in GPS systems is very relevant. Thirdly, nuclear energy. The sun is literally a nuclear furnace. E=mc^2 is a major result of GR (which again is the foundational field of all cosmology), and it is used in all nuclear energy. Literally all nuclear energy is trying to mimic what the sun does. Only we use fission rather than fusion because we have not yet been able to develop a fusion reactor that produces a usable net energy. Lastly, I do not know why you are disagreeing with this. We know a lot about cosmology. You saying everything could be wrong is not true. What we know now, we know very well. There's many things we do not know, but that does not speak to what we have discovered thus far. We can test cosmology in our particle accelerators, make observations with deep telescopes, analyze the CMBR, develop simulations, develop mathematical models to design more experiments, etc. The only reason you would be against this is if you had an innate bias against it. Your base claim is just wrong. If you were honest with yourself yo would admit that. There is no reason for this to spark irrational anger. I'm just trying to give you facts so you may realize your mistake. I hope this helps.

[@emanuellasker3650]

It is likely that the elements proceed by transmutation of the divine essence as there was no cogent reason for the existence of anything else, except by way of the denial of God.

[@budnrobots2968]

i believe being ‘made in the image’ means that we reflect the fundamental nature of the universe, that being differences between entities

[@miked2674]

If universe is expanding, from what point is it expanding? Is there a centre? He seems to say there is no centre?

[@kylelochlann5053]

"Nothing" means the set of all possible universes (actually that doesn't work, so it's the set of all universes that look like ours, a mini-superspace). Oh, and you need all the machinery of quantum fields, quantum systems, Lagrangian mechanics... so "nothing" means "everything, times infinity".

[@gorequillnachovidal]

so then he can say well, our universe was birthed inside another.... well, ok, but that being the case that one is birthed inside another and etc... there still had to be a point where there was one universe.... then before that zero universes....

[@SirSpence99]

It is big bangs all the way down. One cannot traverse an infinite, therefore this claim is nonsense. There must have been an uncaused cause.

[@Ruby_Villain]

It goes on forever, yes, in both ways, big and small. We cannot comprehend even slightly what that means. But it is true.

[@gorequillnachovidal]

@@Ruby_Villain makes no sense if it started smaller than an atom.

[@Huveto]

​@@SirSpence99uncaused cause? You mean God?

[@CDX7]

@@StrengthGuilds No it doesn’t have anything to do with faith. It’s that we as humans, evolved to comprehend and understand things at our scale, cannot comprehend infinity. In human world everything we understand causal relationships which happen at a moment of time. So we ask of course what caused the universe and what happened before. But an infinite universe has no cause and there’s no such thing as “before”.

[@magikdeetrik]

What makes me think we live forever, is that in the billions of years of existence, we live for not even 100 years and then we are gone forever. It’s not even a blink of an eye, yet here we are. We see other people die, but we are still alive. I’ve died in my dreams, but then woke up

[@judegraham463]

nice idea but?

[@robertvondarth1730]

Time slows down infinitely the closer you get to the beginning. The beginning is a temporal asymptote

[@Ruby_Villain]

@@gyrate98 why do you keep writing this on everyone’s comment, as if it means anything at all? Please stop the ignorant, trollish behavior

[@Huveto]

Time doesn't slow down or gets faster. It is constant and infinite. We only use a specific scale of measurement of time to calculate and understand it based on our own reality. It's nonsense to believe time and space being created into existence. It would be impossible for time and space not to exist at any point of time in history, even if there was no scale of measurement that can be used to measure it at the point of reality.

[@trogglepope9792]

@@gyrate98 Says the guy with a demonic looking avatar that mocks his own humanity.

[@mikestewart4206]

So the beginning is infinitely far away in the past? Like it’s been there for ever. Just like outside the edge of the visible bit does not exist and never will from where we stand. The limits of an infinite universe? Pretty straight forward.

[@robertvondarth1730]

@@mikestewart4206 that’s my theory, yes. It’s a temporal asymptote. (Relative) Time slows infinitely

[@TheShadowinflight]

Definitely need more conversations with Laurence on this topic

[@TimBitts649]

This is the best Jerry Seinfeld interview ever. His show was about nothing. Now turned out, same for Universe.

[@YourWiggityDude]

The funny is also that we will never see the actual state of the universe, we will always see the universe as it was from the past😂

[@notloki3377]

lawrence krauss has engaged in too many bullying tactics while claiming to be the voice of reason for me to take him seriously. notice, i never said any alternative theories were true. just that he's an untrustworthy and motivated by perverse incentives.

[@alaricgoldkuhl155]

In the beginning God said "Hey Jesus, pull my finger." 'nuff said.

[@higgsbisson485]

I accept without a doubt that evolution and the big bang are scientifically sound theories but no one has yet deciphered how they both got started.

[@zechariahahl-k9n]

More than that - there are multiple 'big bangs' that must be explained. The inception of matter (big bang), inception of life, and the inception of consciousness. Materialism has huge gaps in its theory of creation. There are theories of each, but nothing is certain.

[@williambillycraig1057]

The guest spoke of how what we can see now will not be visible at some point in the future. We are in the best time to see as much as we can now, and we are also in the best place to make observations of the universe for many other reasons. It is like we are alive at the right time and the right place to not only live but to explore our universe. A book called The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery addresses this well. It is not my chance; we are where and when we are.

[@anthonybrett]

As a person of both faith and science, the comments in here frighten me. People are posting their disbelief using a device containing billions of transistors on a wafer thin silicon substrate. A computer. A device that wouldn't exist without our understanding of most the laws Lawrence is discussing here. *Facepalm*

[@maxwell8758]

Thank you! People in these comments are actually stupid.

[@anthonybrett]

@bm1617 "Where do you think the laws that humans have ‘discovered’ come from?" God of course. But it takes someone like Krauss to discover them. So if you like using your computer and going to the Doctor and having an MRI, maybe you should be thankful of their effort?

[@mikestewart4206]

Tracking back accelerates slowing time to a standstill that last forever putting the beginning beyond comprehension. Call it what you will.

[@BattlewarPenguin]

This is truly the most complex question that we may never get the answer to. No matter how we view the question, 'how did the universe arise from nothing?' It will be always a self-referencial question, meaning the universe created the universe. Existence somehow emerged from nonexistence. We don't know what came before, nor what will came after. The stars dissapearing into the night sky with enough time it's something tragic to think about, and eventually black holes will evaporate too, only the tales of it will remain. But as we live in the slimmest of specks of time, not only for human life, but life itself, the solar system itself, the sun itself. More reason to appreciate this unique instance of time. From all the periods of the universe, in which matter/fundamental particles needed to be form, in which stars and planets were hostile to life, in which it didn't support the conditions for life. We live in the only known period for life not only to exist but to thrive. If that isn't a miracle, I don't what is Great video and great content!

[@scribbler60]

For those with faith, fine. If it helps get you through the night, perfectly ok. But don't try to pretend your faith can be supported by scientific inquiry. It can't. If you try, you will lose, 100% of the time.

[@CatDandor]

Every thing comes from nothing,therefore nothing is something. For myself,that is the answer where immortality is concerned. I take comfort in that.

[@JungleJargon]

In case you didn’t know, Lawrence, every effect comes from a greater cause.

[@geralldus]

We cannot grasp that we individually came into existence form nothing any more than we can understand the universe was formed in a similar way.

[@garyandtricia1]

@geralldus you state something as fact, that is barely a theory, an unprovable one at that. You also misspelled FROM.

[@JacobKuchkov]

In the beginning, nothing exploded Brilliant

[@charlesbrown9896]

Love how ppl in comments think they know more than Krauss about what he's talking about

[@luciadegroseille-noire8073]

Try this: Gravitational effects occurs instantaneously, so the rest of the universe is affecting us in this way in real time. We see, through observations, the ancient universe whose effects upon us occured milliards of years ago. The state of the contemporary universe is unknown.

[@Ibrian8888]

It also strangely appears that we are in the center of the universe

[@dawidjlb2589]

? We don't know where we are in universe and how big it is. Whenever they say that universe is x amount of lightyears big they mean Visible universe. It means that we don't see anything further thatapproximately 13.5b of light years away from us.

[@Ibrian8888]

@@dawidjlb2589 all measurements begin on earth

[@notloki3377]

what's the center of an infinite circle? wherever you are...

[@maxwell8758]

Everywhere would have this effect.

[@Ibrian8888]

Two separate objects cannot exist…if they are separate, they are separated by “ nothing”…. You cannot float around in “ nothing “ …..

[@geovanijarrett6071]

If one doesn’t know what it is….isn’t it nothing until one pins it down with the Anthropic Principle?

[@duaneporter2061]

These ideas are very interesting, but I feel our knowledge of physics and what the universe is made of or what it actually is puts the probability that any of this is correct is less than 0.001%. Its good to do our best guessing though... but the truth is we are all spouting nonsense as though its fact. We have no idea what is out there or how it works. But as I said we need to keep trying and for that reason its good. But we need to relax on the we know this or that or this if fact. None of it is...

[@jamesbooth3360]

Everything he surmised here is based on the assumption that time is a constant, but the older I get, the faster it goes.🤣

[@dawidjlb2589]

More important concept is. If universe was created out of nothing then it means that another universe can appear at any moment and in any place and completly destroy and push away our universe.

[@MyNameIsThe_Sun]

There is no nothing in the universe for that to happen. True vacuums don't exist as far as we know

[@maxwell8758]

No it doesn’t

[@AnthonyBrogie-gg6ig]

That is saying you are capable of measuring it that is a lie

[@phantom24121]

The Earth is flat jack. Stamped out like clay

[@samuraijaydee]

Lawrence seems to use as many words as Jordan, except they seem as empty as he universe as he defined it and beyond. I see little profit in what he says. It's crazy he's talking about a trillion years in the future. I'm hoping humanity makes it through the next 10 the way things are now.

[@jessewest2109]

Does it matter? What would you do if you had the answer to this query.

[@johnscullion3656]

The Laws exist, now the Logic to decode The Laws also exists. That is where we are at. Which came first? The Laws came first, because the results of those Laws is the phenomenal world in which we live. The original mystery unfolded Lawfully, The origin of The Laws is the most penetrating question.

[@mikestewart4206]

How do you measure time if the universe is expanding faster than light ? Wouldn’t time go backwards, would it be infinitely far away, in the past?

[@judegraham463]

Krauss's point about how there is, much more that we do know now than what we don't know.. I would add that this may be true to the things that we can observe, but it's like President whatshisnames quote, 'its more about the unknown unknown's that concern me than the known unknowns'..

[@sebastiandelgado8879]

I remember the reception of Krauss book “a Universe from nothing”. It was poor to say the least.

[@ChapJRW]

Wow, this man (Krauss) has a lot of faith!

[@tinman1955]

I read Krauss' book "A Universe From Nothing". Most of it is foundational physics and it's good stuff but he never really addressed how or why the universe came from nothing. It's almost like the title is click-bait.

[@mray8519]

Whoa, back up. As of this day we are seeing galaxies older than the universe. Perhaps our concept of time, distance, etc. is wrong and needs a whole rethink.

[@shanepye7078]

The fundamental difference is scientists know and understand that as far as the universe goes, we will never get ALL the answers to our questions. It just isn’t possible. Not religious people but religious zealots believe that they already have all the answers without any knowledge whatsoever. And I did separate religious people from zealots for a reason, there are religions who also accept that they simply don’t know and wrestle with dogma.

[@No2AI]

Unless the beginning came about from technology - someone’s advanced tech. A simulation will similarly come from nothing from the simulation’s perspective.

[@outcastpov9366]

"arising from nothing without any supernatural shenanigans" if u ask me, even if there's no god, the idea of our huge complex, organized, and beautiful universe somehow coming from nothing sounds fairly supernatural as well

[@amAntidisestablishmentarianist]

Monotheism is comprehensive when it suggests that "God created universe from nothing". Some people focus on the first part of the statement (God created) and become theists while others focus on the second part (from nothing) and become atheists. The" creation part" is the whyness of universe while the "from nothing part" is the howness of universe.

[@Lovell93]

I love when people pretend to know what was before this universe became existent.

[@Ibrian8888]

Anthropic principle…it is as such because I observe it

[@Dehmigaahd]

The universe could have spontaneously arisen from nothing and would have the collection of properties we now observe because the math we use to explain our observations tells us so. I don’t know if a more circular statement could be made to demonstrate what we don’t understand.

[@randywise5241]

Nothing cannot make everything. The logic is not in question, the heart of the unbeliever is. It is never about proof but desire.

[@DolphinWithIgloo-fg3ow]

If nothing cannot make everything, then the maker of everything cannot be born out of nothing.

[@billbadson7598]

@@DolphinWithIgloo-fg3ow _"then the maker of everything cannot be born out of nothing."_ The maker of everything wasn't born out of nothing. He was never born. He always was.

[@fatalheart7382]

@@DolphinWithIgloo-fg3ow Imagine thinking it makes more sense that nothing has attributes than that something has attributes.

[@DolphinWithIgloo-fg3ow]

@@billbadson7598 I.E., created from nothing. So now we are back to square one.

[@billbadson7598]

@@DolphinWithIgloo-fg3ow _"I.E., created from nothing. So now we are back to square one."_ "Created from nothing" and "not created" are not even remotely the same thing. Not even a little bit, by any reasonable definition of any of those words.

[@gorequillnachovidal]

being contained in something smaller than an atom is not nothing.. you say nothing,.. then this thing smaller then an atom...that then blew up to be our universe..... Then later maybe the universe is infinite... how is that? it started smaller than an atom.

[@JungleJargon]

In physics matter and energy cannot make or direct themselves. So there was a time when matter and energy were made as well as time itself since measurable time can’t exist without a great amount of matter. This means there was a time when time was made in the not too distant past. This shows that every physical thing is the result of a Creation. Only your Creator can perfectly cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word as no one else ever can. This is the only absolute truth in existence.

[@gorequillnachovidal]

now he says we can't be affected by anything out of our universe....well explain Cthulhu then, buddy?

[@ianyoung6706]

I try to be slow about criticizing people much more educated than me, But I always got feelings from Krauss that I don’t get from other intellectuals necessarily; I think he thinks his popular audience is stupid, I think he’s a little too impressed with his own ideas, And I don’t think he’s shown anything that I’ve seen that isn’t just theory weaving that appears to have as it’s only motive the denial of anything that smells religious or “supernatural” (whatever that means, I don’t know that anyone really agrees on a single definition for supernatural).

[@Michael_X313]

The universe knows itself through us but I wonder if it has known before..

[@mandygershon8603]

What if, 10 trillion years from now, they have our stories about how there were galaxies all around moving away from us and a microwave background? Would they think they were just myths?

[@jawneethecurious]

Gee, you can't get a better example of a person who completely lost in his confirmation biases and theoretical physics. Lawerence Krauss is a perfect example of a "educated" fool!

[@cwx8]

It's plausible. Why wouldn't it be. All of our physical laws and perceptions of them come from one event. Not a broader event that this fits into. The origin state may well not exist. It doesn't need to. There may be nothing out there. A void impossible to understand because it may not even have space, for example. No dimensions.

[@jawneethecurious]

@@cwx8 How do physical laws create themselves? Steven Hawking declared that these laws existed before the big bang. Let's just make stuff up to support our imagination. Like multitverses... not a scrap of evidence other than a bunch of "theories" written on a blackboard.

[@cwx8]

@@jawneethecurious the question is irrelevant. The laws begin at the start.

[@jawneethecurious]

@@cwx8 Why would there be "laws" if everything is just a random chance explosion?

[@jawneethecurious]

@@cwx8 Huh? Obviously, you just want to believe without thinking. So, like magic, the laws of science appear from nothing. Maybe Santa created them...

[@grendol6968]

Anybody can argue about the unmeasurable and look like an expert. History shows us that. How many grains of sand are on the beach? How many stars in the sky? How many years ago did the universe form? Today’s puffed shirt ‘experts’ like to poke fun at yesterday’s people who were in their place. This argument shows us more about humans than it does about cosmology.

[@tl9568]

I don’t like how he talks about the expansion of the universe like he knows with so much certainty what’s gonna happen in the future. Doesn’t he know that there’s some models that predict that dark energy causing the expansion is going to decay over time and the expansion could slow down and then perhaps everything start to contract from gravity. There’s some other cosmologists with different ideas. But this guy speaks with so much certainty like he knows what’s gonna happen trillions of years in the future.

[@ravichanana3148]

Eric Lerner has a paper that says that the Universe is static.

[@ezrafriend]

This seems to be a very well thought out comment section in a very good way

[@geovanijarrett6071]

🤔

[@ravichanana3148]

Edwin Hubble has had a time of his life.

[@danglebeeries5889]

The moment one suggests nothing gives birth to something/anything, regardless of their brilliance and experience, they lose all credibility with me. Never has this been observed, much less repeated. One cannot define “nothing” except by making nothing into something.

[@ravichanana3148]

There was no ultraviolet detector in 1929.

[@theparkerfamily7153]

Always was and will be, there was never a nothing

[@classicalmechanic8914]

There was something before the big bang. Some called it god. I called it space.

[@bryancobb1151]

Glad you guys are coming around, I've been saying that everything came from nothing for a decade, the details are way wrong though, don't ask me how though, it has to do with electricity✌😃

[@judegraham463]

what really blows me away it how short a time 14 billion years is.. that seems to me to be nothing in the scale of infinity. there are probably more than a few hundred people in the USA alone who have more dollars in their bank account than that. both the ideas of finite and infinity blow me away as much as each other.. I dont understand how there could be either. will human intelligence be around long enough to ever understand where it all came from, and where it's all going.. Personally I really like the idea of repulsion and attraction.. I'm not sure of the Physics name for it, but that theory where the universe keeps rolling on through this never ending process of one Big Bang after another, that retraction back in on itself to then stimulate yet another Big Bang, and on and on it goes. Now this makes sense to my simple little brain. It also makes emotional sense. Anything else leaves me in a ditch of despair and depression..

[@Yesica1993]

One minute was enough. Nothing arises from nothing. That's nonsense and everyone knows it. Why not have an actual Christian to discuss this issue, instead of an anti-theist like Krauss?

[@What-he5pr]

Exactly. Why aren't additional universes constantly forming if nothing is all it takes?

[@Yesica1993]

@@What-he5pr Oh, that's a good point! Although, isn't there a "multiverse" theory as well? I love that stuff for science fiction, but it makes no sense in the real world.

[@SirSpence99]

Actually, there is an argument that *something* must have been an uncaused cause. However, any claim that it is big bangs all the way down is utter nonsense.

[@maxwell8758]

You are making an argument from personal incredulity. You cannot use common sense in physics. Everything could have arose from nothing.

[@maxwell8758]

@@What-he5prthey could be

[@DragoNate]

"our universe could be a small part of a much larger thing we now call the 'multiverse' " since when is the "multiverse" just a larger part of our universe? "observable universe" makes sense. for just our segment. but if it's the same thing as just "universe" then "observable" isn't necessary. the multiverse is not just a larger part of our universe, it's more like the entire bag of all possible universes (should any others actually exist) like parallel universes and such.

[@spindoctor6385]

That was just Krauss attempting to cover up for his own flawed, re-defining what the universe is.

[@DragoNate]

@@spindoctor6385 lol

[@kallianpublico7517]

Having watched Dune 2, it was proposed that if you want to see the future you have to have knowledge of the past. Is science just the material correlation of a certain type of future? Are the laws of physics just the "rules" of that past that causally lead to that present and future we are scientifically imposing with "measurement"? Where do the "Laws of Nature" come from? Empirical observation or theoretical calculation? The past we can no longer see, does that control what we see now? As Kamala Harris has put it can we see "...what is possible, unburdened by what has been."?

[@Zayden.Marxist]

How can something no edge, no boundary, have a size that can be considered small or large?

[@Beau321]

If there’s a finite space, then could all matter be getting exponentially smaller which is un-perceived by the human senses. A true static datum point would be a way to measure all, considering all measurements are man made. Does our observations affect the results? Is our relentless pursuit in knowledge our trap 🪤? A true static datum point can only come from another dimension.

[@Arjun-eb1yc]

Great stuff. Have more physicists on.

[@frankie3041]

Laws of physics are not nothing. Fields are not nothing. Forces are not nothing. Krauss is full of something however.

[@one1one1]

GENESIS 1☝️ONE❤💧🤜🐝🤛

[@one1one1]

Why is a human think they can determine how something non human works. This guy just slick . Explaining the un explainable . To people that don't understand on how were suppose to stand UNDER☝️🥴🤜🐝🤛

[@notloki3377]

goofy

[@halcyo]

Genesis isn't even an original creation myth. It is a Semitic redesign of far older creation myth elements that are more ancient, and not even monotheistic. It may be a beautiful and powerful story, but it is not an objectively accurate description of an actual beginning.

[@notloki3377]

@@halcyo true facts.

[@maxwell8758]

Genisis 1 is wrong.

[@ResoluteRonin]

Beyond the face of every black hole is a universe unto itself. Supernovae that create black holes are how the multiverse perpetuates.

[@emmaluciaev1938]

Was the priest who made those early observations the famous french geologists Pierre Theilard des Chardin?

[@tb82957]

No, it was Georges Lemaitre

[@KaylebTennant]

more physicists, the Penrose interview was great.