A first-of-it-kind symposium on origins brought together 80 scientists to discuss and collaborate on these intriguing puzzles
Lawrence M. Krauss, a theoretical physicist, commentator and book author, is Foundation Professor and director of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University.
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
13 Comments
Add CommentToo bad there's no study on the origin of denial.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought the origin of denial was Lake Victoria.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually,there are two sources of denial, Lake Victoria for the White denial and Lake Tana for the Blue denial,they join to form denial. ie two negatives make another negative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually,there are two sources of denial, Lake Victoria for the White denial and Lake Tana for the Blue denial,they join to form denial. ie two negatives make another negative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe search for origins is fine and must and will go on. But whatever was the origin the the universe, the universe is just there, there's no explaining of that; whatever the origin of mind, mind is there and it is what defines our humanity; whatever the origin of life, life is more valuable to us than anything inanimate. Let us search for origins, but don't let our preoccupation with origins blind us to the primacy of value. That is the domain of philosophy which nowadays is squeezed out by the clash of science on the one hand and theology on the other.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first comment was right on the money; typically, the "discussion" soon deteriorated into the kind of smart-ass irrelevance that inhibits serious exchange of ideas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I agree with Krauss about religion, I see little hope our species will be able to get past its fear-based need to believe, which is well protected by several mechanisms, two of which are our penchants for trivialization and denial.
I think the first question ("How did the Universe begin?") is in fact stated incorrectly, since it already supposes there was some form of "begin"to begin with. Which to my mind is an impossibility (there would have to be a cause for that begin, but then that cause had to already exists before there was a universe, etc.). So, the question then reads: "Was there a begin to the universe?", to which I would respond, certainly not!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCreation ex nihilo?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nothing" is an extrapolation by us to get our minds around notions about what existed before creation. But "nothingness" is derived from our experiences with everything else. One principle of logic is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In the case of nothingness, we try to infer the existence of absence (i.e. nothing) from the absence of existence (i.e. our imagination of what that would be like). Such thinking is problematic.
For example, the big bang theory suggests that at the moment of creation of the universe, everything exploded onto the scene, including matter, energy, time and space itself. It does not suggest that space was "empty", waiting in "time" for something to happen, then creation began. The idea is that space and time also sprang into existence with matter and energy and together they unfolded to form the universe as we know it. As a result, we can have no idea whatsoever into what medium our universe was placed. I think of it as the "womb of the world", but by definition, it is completely out of this world.
Given that perspective, I offer the following as examples of how nothing may be real for us.
Consider the number zero: division by zero is undefined in the finite number system. Yet in the "transfinite" number system, zero is no longer a difficult exception, but rather the key to an even larger way of understanding numbers.
Consider a perfect vacuum. Such is practically and theoretically impossible. Yet, that emptiness is not thought to be inert nor barren. In the environment between the nucleus and electron of an atom, electromagnetic fields are so strong as to make the void itself unstable with respect to the spontaneous creation/annihilation of particle/antiparticle pairs. The perfect vacuum is pregnant with unlimited potential.
Consider absolute zero, the coldest temperature, which in theory can never be achieved. Yet, contrary to the popular notions, all motion does not stop at absolute zero, but rather all motion is at its minimum possible energy and there is perfect order. This perfect order is infinitely fragile such that even an infinitesimal amount of thermal energy will utterly destroy it.
Nothing is a created existence, beyond which we cannot imagine and upon which our reality is built.
For me, nothing is an article of faith, and in that context, nothing is where the immanence and transcendence of the Creator intersect.
Excellent comment Kashaba
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf that is the case, and there is a Creator, did he create evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are correct, and there is a Creator- did he create evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid this Creator create evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdid this Creator create evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this