Paper, invented by the Chinese, so, yes, relevant to this thread.
Of course I can think beyond myself. An expanding universe 13.7 billion years old with billions of stars in billions of galaxies is certainly beyond myself. If anything, this narrative surpasses your infinite God who only created the world 6k years ago. As for "nothing" becoming something, well you might need to take a further look at quantum physics. This is a very strange world that often defies our normal conceptions of the physics.
As for your assetion that an effect cannot be greater then it's cause, just look at a string of dominos. One is pushed over, an it pushed over 2 then 4, 8, 16, 32 etc.
When you consider the condition previous to the universe...a vast nothing...that was so much nothing that it was unstable...the instability was not at just a point, so one the domino was pushed, inflation occurred quickly.
However as you mentioned, in the end, the total effect must be zero. When creating a universe, you need three things, energy, matter, and space. Since matter is just a form of energy, we really only need 2 things, energy and space. With energy being positive, and space the reservoir for negative energy, we now have the condition for a universe from nothing, with a total energy of zero, which is, best we can tell at this point, the total energy of the universe.
No God, no supernatural, just physics.
Yea right, the Universe from nothing... here is another comment regarding Krauss:
Krauss�s volume was much praised when it got out in January, but more recently has been slammed by David Albert in the New York Times:
�The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields...
they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.�
That�s harsh, and Krauss understandably doesn�t like what Albert wrote. Still, I wonder if Krauss is justified in referring to Albert as a �moronic philosopher,� considering that the latter is not only a highly respected philosopher of physics at Columbia University, but also holds a PhD in theoretical physics. I didn�t think Rockefeller University (where Albert got his degree) gave out PhD�s to morons, but I could be wrong.
