Confirmed: in his earlier book Creation Revisited (which, like Conjuring, is also a good read) he says chance from chaos decayed nothing into something, essentially the Lincoln-Wasser model, which is equivalent to mine. But he doesn’t articulate this in formal detail the way they and I do.

He approaches it poetically more than formally, but the gist appears to be that anarchy (the lack of government) entails a collapse of nothing into something, to wit, “all change, I shall argue, arises from an underlying collapse into chaos,” i.e., a nothing-state, being ungoverned, is unstable and thus will inevitably collapse into something.

That is indeed basically our view.

Thank you. I see that’s a summary of his book Conjuring the Universe: The Origins of the Laws of Nature. And yes, he is arguing along very similar lines to mine (and Lincoln-Wasser). So well-spotted. I wouldn’t have known this.

His thesis (min. 7:40) is “this universe I think probably emerged from absolutely nothing so it emerged I’m assuming from completely nothing, and by nothing I don’t mean the vacuum, I don’t mean empty space-time, I mean absolutely nothing” and (min. 10:40) “when absolutely nothing turned into what appears to be something, it simply rolled over, and the properties of the newly-born universe inherited the properties of the preceding emptiness.”

He explains this as symmetries. For example, the net angular momentum of the universe is zero, because all the angular momenta in the universe cancel out, which we describe as a conservation law (conservation of angular momentum) but he is proposing that this is an inherited property from a nothing-state, which is also symmetrical and net-zero.

Which would agree with Lincoln-Wasser’s model that only consistent states can emerge from an unstable nothing-state. And only conserved-property states are then consistent.

But neither in the book nor the video does he explain why nothing would “roll over” into a consistent something, only how it would and what the result would look like (which happens to be just what we observe). And his theory is plausible and well argued. He says he discussed the “why” in earlier books. I’m looking into that now.

He presented it in this youtube video, from Royal Institution Channel: https://youtu.be/p9Zmzcl85Ds?si=ekk4Ld-XHK9YPMt8

You’d have to cite where he says that to show me the context.

That doesn’t quite look like the same thing being argued there. But Reddit is a garbage pit. So it’s of no use to this subject.

If you want to engage physicists, you need to do two things differently: (1) earn their attention by citing peer reviewed examples of what you mean (so they know this is already an insider concept and not outsider armchairing), and Lincoln-Wasser isn’t the only example (there is a lot on the concept of what meta-laws observed physical laws come from; for a starter, see Stenger’s Comprehensible Cosmos) and (2) be more specific as to what you mean. Just saying “physical laws” is going to turn scientists off, thinking you don’t know what you are talking about, since “physical laws” is a huge category with an enormous variety of different things being meant by it.

So, for example, we already know why inverse square laws exist (geometry entails them). So you can’t mean those. And we already know why buoyancy laws (the physical systems they describe logically entail them: see All Godless Universes Are Mathematical). So you can’t mean those. And so on. So which laws do you mean?

If you mean, for example, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, then you are talking about GUT and TOE, which have entire scientific communities devoted to them with whole literatures already. You can’t just wade in there without any acquaintance with where those debates have already landed so far.

My point is that ZFS is not a comprehensive GUT or TOE. It is a single hypothesis explaining a single thing (the basic ontology of existence). It does not make specific predictions beyond that (e.g. you can’t derive the mass of a quark from it, like you can Superstring Theory).

Even Lincoln-Wasser are only proposing that ZFS explains why coherent physical systems exist at all, i.e. why any laws of physics ultimately exist, not why our specific laws of physics exist. To get to the latter requires some additional level of explanation—like, for example, Superstring Theory as Metaphysical Atheism, which gets you in the weeds of debate between physicists pro and con superstring theory as the likely TOE, which thus goes off the rails, since you are asking not whether SST is true, but what would explain the true TOE whatever it is, and SST is just an example of a possible TOE. But physicists will think you are stumping for SST and not understand that you are talking at another level deeper, and thus are not committed to SST but to the entire concept of a TOE.

It can be very hard to keep the squirrels away and thus keep any physicist focused on what you are actually asking here.

La théorie de cet article met fin à la régression (à l’état de rien). Il n’y a donc pas de question de « régression infinie » à laquelle répondre.

Peut-être vouliez-vous poster ce commentaire ailleurs. Sans savoir dans quel contexte vous vouliez poser cette question, je ne sais pas ce que vous demandez.

Par exemple, si vous demandez pourquoi les chronologies du « passé infini » ne sont pas impossibles, j’aborde cela de manière plus approfondie dans mon débat sur la cosmologie avec Wallace Marshall (utilisez le champ de recherche dans la marge supérieure droite).

Meanwhile, on the last point:

We Are Probably Not in a Simulation

And the God of modern theism cannot arise in a multiverse (only isolated and limited “gods” can, whether Boltzmann or manufactured/evolved; and none of whom are observed to be anywhere around here).