David Gross - What are the Limits and Scope of Science?

How far can science go? How much can science discover? Must all truth come from science? Are there boundaries to science? Are there truths, real truths, beyond science? Not just truths beyond today's science, but beyond science in principle forever?

[shujauthussain]

In the end he said, "One day the question why there is something rather than nothing will be broken down into 20 different questions, each of them quite interesting and all I wonder if 'Reductionism' is the always way to answer this ultimate question?

[kirbysmith]

Minimizing the question of “why is there is something rather than nothing” is pointless in that the question itself exists and continues to exist. I don’t think it is a question that is foolish or nonsensical. Science is a wonderful tool however it is speculation to say that science someday might be able to answer that question in total or in parts. Faith naturally comes into the discussion regarding this question whether you believe that a deity or God created the something that we can now observe or whether it popped spontaneously out of nothing or it always existed and never had a beginning. So, ergo, we all exercise faith in attempting to answer it. I find that the Bible has the best and most rational explanation to this question not merely for this question but a vast number of other questions that science cannot ever address.

[zatoichiable]

They should say we dont know everything but were trying otherwise if they say they know everything then the pay stops.

[jensklausen]

Maybe nothing is a state that does not exist, but is speculatively proposed to exist by something?

[kahlread]

A simulated universe that works off an algorithm or two, or three, or four... might answer the fundamental questions, especially if it is shown that the universe continues to create E8 units of complexity out of chaos.

[dAvrilthebear]

So, this boils down to a *belief* that in the future the science will give you an answer.

[theophilus]

Physics always has to start with SOMETHING in its explanations. It is, therefore, impotent in approaching the question of why there is something rather than nothing. No amount of progress will change that. Downgrading, as Gross seems to do, the question as perhaps not useful is besides the point - the question remains. Why should being of 'use' be the sole criterion a question should satisfy in order to be legitimate?

[stanh]

“Why is there something rather than nothing?”

The way the question is posed illustrates a limitation of the mind. Firstly, one cannot have nothing, because there’s nothing there to be had.
A universe cannot consist of nothing. Yes, the concept of zero, the empty set is useful, because it allows useful mathematical operations and thought experiments that’d otherwise be impossible.

A theist may say there’s something rather than nothing because, ahem, God, or some deity, created it. This is unnecessary.
It’s unnecessary, if, as I think is the case, the universe is self-existing, possibly eternal, possibly infinite, our Big Bang being merely a local event.

[ravichanana]

Something from nothing can only occur if there is bound energy which is invisible to the naked eye which converts to mass under certain condition. E=mc^2.

[jonm]

Science has to take account of the observer, and conciousness. The very act of witnessing changes outcomes. Wether you go up the ladder or down your position is shaky.

[SilvioZanin]

He show to us (we that have notions of basic limits of the science and notion about philosophical questions), that the external conceptions about science necessarily exists because otherwise he demolish the rationality what yours owns comments depends for exist.

[Green-xnij]

No limit at all!
DG is just another biblical kind of appearance in short passage of appearance like 2000 years ago!?
Science of reality as is has not yet been evolved!
On the other side, the limit is what you see is what you get (a question what is correct is just stupid), as a product of a cosmic process.

[whiteliketar]

Stubborn prideful men not wanting to understand the obvious. Such a tragedy.

[FAAMS]

The question is not hard and makes no sense. Its odd a top scientist thinks this question might come to be treated in the future, instead of dismissing it. (Perhaps some good training if proper Philosophy would have helped) Let me be cut clear simple: There is nothing to nothingness! The very negation of anything requires first that things are posited. Negation of all things can only come after of positing things and in this sense, absolute nothingness is not achievable nor conceivable. Absolute nothingness is not a moment of nothingness, rather is the negation of things forever! And by forever one would have to negate them before they started to exist in the first place, which of course doesn't necessitate negation.... Ultimately nothingness negates itself out of any possible existence, as for example, considering something that was and is no longer, even if it was the only thing that was, is more, than nothingness, forever. Hence, the answer is obvious There is something because there is no alternative!

[suncat]

There is simultaneously something as well as nothing. All the somethings in reality add up, (or cancel each other out, to put it another way), to NOTHING.

Next question.

[BradHolkesvig]

When scientists finally realize that every visible object, even the smallest of particles are just illusions without any evidence to support their theories. Then they will have to realize that we're living in a simulation that was created by some aliens who we will never see.