AgnosticWeb.com - Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish; Krauss dissed

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish; Krauss dissed (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 18 Oct 2015 13:32:58 +0000

Ed Feser takes on Krauss:-http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/09/15760/-"The closest Krauss comes to justifying his thesis is in the following passage:-science is an atheistic enterprise. “My practice as a scientist is atheistic,” the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote, in 1934. “That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.” . . . In my more than thirty years as a practicing physicist, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature . . .-***-"Of course, the fallacy in the latter “argument” is obvious. That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn't prove that X does not exist. We need make no reference to general relativity when studying dentistry, but that doesn't cast doubt on Einstein's discovery. We need make no mention of the physiology of tapeworms when engineering bridges, but that doesn't mean that reports of people having tapeworms are all bogus. Similarly, the fact that scientists need make no reference to God when doing physics, biology, or any other science doesn't prove—or even suggest—that the existence of God is doubtful.-*** "Krauss might reply that, unlike checkers, dentistry, or engineering, science covers all of reality; thus, if God exists, evidence for his existence ought to show up in scientific inquiry.-There are two problems with such a suggestion. First, it begs the question. Second, it isn't true.-"It begs the question because whether science is the only rational means of investigating reality is precisely what is at issue between New Atheists like Krauss and their critics. Traditional philosophical arguments for God's existence begin with what any possible scientific theory must take for granted—such as the thesis that there is a natural world to be studied, and that there are laws governing that world that we might uncover via scientific investigation.-"The arguments claim that, whatever the specific empirical details turn out to be, the facts that there is a world at all and that there are any laws governing it cannot be made sense of unless there is an uncaused cause sustaining that world in being, a cause that exists of absolute necessity rather than merely contingently (as the world itself and the laws that govern it are merely contingent).-***-"Similarly, what science uncovers are, in effect, the “rules” that govern the “game” that is the natural world. Its domain of study is what is internal to the natural order of things. It presupposes that there is such an order, just as the rules of checkers presuppose that there are such things as checkers boards and game pieces. For that very reason, though, science has nothing to say about why there is any natural order or laws in the first place, any more than the rules of checkers tell you why there are any checkers boards or checkers rules in the first place.-"Thus, science cannot answer the question why there is any world at all, or any laws at all. To answer those questions, or even to understand them properly, you must take an intellectual vantage point from outside the world and its laws, and thus outside of science. You need to look to philosophical argument, which goes deeper than anything mere physics can uncover.-***-"You needn't take my word for it. People otherwise sympathetic to views like Krauss's have been very critical of his amateurish attempts at philosophy—including atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci and even Krauss's fellow New Atheist Jerry Coyne. Philosopher of physics David Albert (who, unlike Krauss, knows something about both physics and philosophy) has been particularly hard on Krauss.-"His fellow scientists don't need Krauss's advice, but perhaps he would profit if more of them told him to give it a rest already. In particular, he could do with less militancy and mouthing off, and more effort acquiring some actual basic knowledge about the ideas he is criticizing."-Comment: Why I don't read Krauss.

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

dhw — Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:41:21 +0000

Krauss: What drove me to write this book was this discovery that the nature of "nothing" had changed, that we've discovered that "nothing" is almost everything and that it has properties. That to me is an amazing discovery."-dhw: He appears to have made the amazing discovery that words can mean whatever you want them to mean. "Nothing" now means something, or perhaps even everything. The possibilities of this game are endless, but I think I'll stick to cricket, in which all the players know that "in" means in, and "out" means out, and "nought" means nought.-Romansh: Krauss: "But I don't really give a damn what "nothing" means to philosophers; I care about the "nothing" of reality."-You don't have to be a philosopher to dispute the claim that “nothing” means almost everything and has properties. It makes nonsense of language, and if he doesn't give a damn about language, why should we give a damn about the games he plays with it?

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:16:54 +0000

Krauss needs o attend this new conference at Perimeter Institute in Canada. Someone is thinking clearly:-http://blog.physicsworld.com/2015/06/22/why-converge/-"Turok explains that the “large bandwagon” of the last 30 years has not found experimental support. The bandwagon in question is the Standard Model of particle physics established in the 1970s, which, he says, people have been elaborating ever since. “Grand unified theories, supersymmetry, string theory, M-theory, multiverse theory,” he lists. “Each is not particularly radical, but is becoming ever more complex and arbitrary.”-"To illustrate the lack of experimental support for these ideas, Turok describes how many people were hoping string theory would represent a radical development; but since string theory - as currently interpreted - leads to the multiverse, Turok describes it as the “least predictive theory ever”.-"Indeed, experimental support has not been found for other extensions of the Standard Model either. “We have discovered the Higgs and nothing else,” says Turok, “yet the vast majority of theorists had been confidently predicting WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles) and supersymmetric particles…Theorists are walking around in a bit of a stunned silence.” He adds that it could turn out to be right that all sorts of other particles are needed along with the Higgs - but that thought seems to be misguided.-“'My view is that this has been a kind of catastrophe - we've lost our way,” he says. “What we need are ideas as simple and radical as in the start of the 20th century with quantum mechanics.'”-"So what might these ideas look like? Turok explains how observations have shown that the universe is simpler than we ever expected - in contrast to our theories, which are becoming ever more complex. For example, Planck has mapped the CMB (cosmic microwave background) sky and we have found that only two numbers are needed to describe it. The hydrogen atom is another example of something that can be described with a simple model - only three numbers are required.-“'Yet theories about multiverses, et cetera, have all kinds of parameters,” says Turok. “The theories are just way more complicated than the phenomena.'”

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:08:56 +0000

Krauss: "What drove me to write this book was this discovery that the nature of "nothing" had changed, that we've discovered that "nothing" is almost everything and that it has properties. That to me is an amazing discovery." > > dhw: He appears to have made the amazing discovery that words can mean whatever you want them to mean. "Nothing" now means something, or perhaps even everything. The possibilities of this game are endless, but I think I'll stick to cricket, in which all the players know that "in" means in, and "out" means out, and "nought" means nought.-Should be an obvious error to everyone.

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:07:39 +0000

David: What he has done is point out that there must be something before the Big Bang. One can never get something from nothing. There must be something eternal before the BB. Take your choice as to what it is.-> Romansh: Not sure I agree with your analysis David. > > The problem for me is that I live in Cartesian three dimensional world and when I imagine nothing it is always an empty black void. > > Simply, I am not sure how to imagine nothing.-I have the same problem, obviously, but the concept exists as 'a true nothingness'. That isn't my point which you didn't answer: there must be an eternal something which preceded the Big Bang.

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 14:03:02 +0000

dhw: He appears to have made the amazing discovery that words can mean whatever you want them to mean. "Nothing" now means something, or perhaps even everything. The possibilities of this game are endless, but I think I'll stick to cricket, in which all the players know that "in" means in, and "out" means out, and "nought" means nought. > > Romansh: Krauss: "But I don't really give a damn what "nothing" means to philosophers; I care about the "nothing" of reality."-But the 'nothing of reality' is something, quantum potentiality in our space-time. And I thought Krauss likes philosophers. Rom, he can't be defended in his own words. And like all of us he has no idea what preceded this universe.

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

romansh — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:41:42 +0000

What he has done is point out that there must be something before the Big Bang. One can never get something from nothing. There must be something eternal before the BB. Take your choice as to what it is. Not sure I agree with your analysis David.-The problem for me is that I live in Cartesian three dimensional world and when I imagine nothing it is always an empty black void. -Simply, I am not sure how to imagine nothing.

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

romansh — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 13:27:38 +0000

He appears to have made the amazing discovery that words can mean whatever you want them to mean. "Nothing" now means something, or perhaps even everything. The possibilities of this game are endless, but I think I'll stick to cricket, in which all the players know that "in" means in, and "out" means out, and "nought" means nought.-Krauss: "But I don't really give a damn what "nothing" means to philosophers; I care about the "nothing" of reality."

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

dhw — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 12:39:45 +0000

Krauss: "What drove me to write this book was this discovery that the nature of "nothing" had changed, that we've discovered that "nothing" is almost everything and that it has properties. That to me is an amazing discovery." -He appears to have made the amazing discovery that words can mean whatever you want them to mean. "Nothing" now means something, or perhaps even everything. The possibilities of this game are endless, but I think I'll stick to cricket, in which all the players know that "in" means in, and "out" means out, and "nought" means nought.

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 04:44:36 +0000

Romansh: > http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-r... for throwing Krauss at me:-"Krauss: That would be a legitimate argument if that were all I was arguing. By the way it's a nebulous term to say that something is a quantum vacuum in this way. That's another term that these theologians and philosophers have started using because they don't know what the hell it is, but it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about. When I talk about empty space, I am talking about a quantum vacuum, but when I'm talking about no space whatsoever, I don't see how you can call it a quantum vacuum. It's true that I'm applying the laws of quantum mechanics to it, but I'm applying it to nothing, to literally nothing. No space, no time, nothing. There may have been meta-laws that created it, but how you can call that universe that didn't exist "something" is beyond me. When you go to the level of creating space, you have to argue that if there was no space and no time, there wasn't any pre-existing quantum vacuum. That's a later stage. -"Even if you accept this argument that nothing is not nothing, you have to acknowledge that nothing is being used in a philosophical sense. But I don't really give a damn about what "nothing" means to philosophers; I care about the "nothing" of reality. And if the "nothing" of reality is full of stuff, then I'll go with that.-He is talking around his subterfuge. "Nothing full of stuff"-" Krause what I point out at the end of the book is that the multiverse may resolve all of those questions. " -More pie in the sky. What is provable about a multiverse?- "Krauss: "The multiverse could explain it by being eternal, in the same way that God explains it by being eternal, but there's a huge difference: the multiverse is well motivated and God is just an invention of lazy minds."-Motivated by whom? Those who want to get rid of fine tuning. Talk about laziness to conjure up something which we cannot prove. -On the other hand I agree with this in a sense:-"Krause: It's a fine line and it's hard to tell where to fall on this one. What drove me to write this book was this discovery that the nature of "nothing" had changed, that we've discovered that "nothing" is almost everything and that it has properties. That to me is an amazing discovery." -What he has done is point out that there must be something before the Big Bang. One can never get something from nothing. There must be something eternal before the BB. Take your choice as to what it is.

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

romansh — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:33:42 +0000

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-r...

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 23 Jun 2015 01:12:37 +0000

To educate further on the idiocy of nothingness being unstable lets look at a favorite philosopher of mine, Ed Feser:-http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-part-of-nothing-dont-you.html#more-"So what's the point of all this ado about nothing? You know what the point is: To try to show that physics alone can explain the existence of the universe. Hence the key line of the piece: “Perhaps the big bang was just nothingness doing what comes naturally.” But read in a straightforward way, this is just nonsense, for reasons of the sort already given: If this so-called “nothingness” has a “nature” and “does” things, then it isn't really “nothingness” at all that we're talking about. And of course, the article and the physicists it quotes don't really mean “nothingness” in a straightforward way in the first place. They mean a “roiling broth” governed by the laws of quantum theory, entropy, etc. and that not only isn't nothing, but just is part of the universe and therefore just is part of the explanandum and therefore does nothing whatsoever to explain that explanandum. "-Just as I explained previously. Read the whole article. It is a priceless putdown of substituting quantum nothingness and saying it isn't something. Any answer Romansh?

Romansh: the instability of nothing, rubbish (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 18:25:51 +0000

Romansh brought up this issue. The so-called instability of nothing only occurs if you make nothing into something, as my answer to him implies. Quantum potentiality is not nothing as the following essay points out, and Krauss is one of the non-thinking atheist cosmologists who have dragged it out as a argument.:-http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0-"Lawrence M. Krauss, a well-known cosmologist and prolific popular-science writer, apparently means to announce to the world, in this new book, that the laws of quantum mechanics have in them the makings of a thoroughly scientific and adamantly secular explanation of why there is something rather than nothing. -"The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. 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. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren't, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and 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."-Read the whole critique. It's worth it. And so is this discussion:-http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2012/07/reviwe-and-debuck-lawrence-krausss.html-"He seems not to understand what these “moronic philosophers” are driving at. He keeps talking like he's proved something if he shows that there is no “nothing” but in fact that's the only way his argument would work. If no actual nothing then he has no argument at all. Then he's just saying “the universe came from something that we can't account for.” Implication: it might have needed God to create it. It only appears to be that God is unnecessary if things can spontaneously pop up out of true absolute nothing. Even that would not be proof since we can't prove there really is no cause. Yet if we could prove that that would be the only real way to prove that God is not needed or not present. The real answer he has that might work is based upon pure speculation. He appeals to natural law and a supposition not in evidence that they are some kind of accident. This just puts the atheist back at square one saying “maybe there could be an alterative to God, maybe.'”-The whole issue is a slight-of-hand re-definition of terms.-Romansh will not have an answer.

Falsifiability (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 22 Jun 2015 00:22:36 +0000

> Romansh: First cause? The instability of nothing?-You have followed what I consider as strange line of reasoning. If it is truly nothing, and here I am excluding virtual quantum activity, for quantum perturbations are 'something', then nothing can not be stable or unstable, for nothing can do nothing. Shades of Richard Carrier and Vic Stenger. -Carrier interview:- http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2011/12/31/richard-carrier-interview/ -In it he says nothing cannot be stopped from doing something! To me that is unbelieveable hogwash.

Falsifiability (reply)

romansh — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 22:55:17 +0000

> > > > Romansh: I would argue a loving God in any common use of the word loving is falsifiable. > > > > > > David: Your basis? Religious statements, religious wars? > > > > Romansh: disease > > tsunamis > > earthquakes > > starvation > > > > these are not the hallmarks of a loving god certainly not an omnipotent conscious one. If you disagree I would love to hear your reasoning. > > You are using the religious approach to God assuming their attributes of Him are true. I don't know that. I can only conclude that God is the greater power behind creation. He may well be conscious and omnipotent, but there is nothing in nature that tells me He is consciously loving, as your list points out. But that does not falsify the need for a first cause. I can only hope He is loving.-Exactly ... we can at least falsify to some degree a loving God. I am not making any claims about any other god religious or otherwise.-First cause? The instability of nothing?

Falsifiability (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 22:40:58 +0000

> > > Romansh: I would argue a loving God in any common use of the word loving is falsifiable. > > > > David: Your basis? Religious statements, religious wars? > > Romansh: disease > tsunamis > earthquakes > starvation > > these are not the hallmarks of a loving god certainly not an omnipotent conscious one. If you disagree I would love to hear your reasoning.-You are using the religious approach to God assuming their attributes of Him are true. I don't know that. I can only conclude that God is the greater power behind creation. He may well be conscious and omnipotent, but there is nothing in nature that tells me He is consciously loving, as your list points out. But that does not falsify the need for a first cause. I can only hope He is loving.

Falsifiability (reply)

romansh — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:16:00 +0000

> > Romansh: I would argue a loving God in any common use of the word loving is falsifiable. > > Your basis? Religious statements, religious wars?-disease tsunamis earthquakes starvation-these are not the hallmarks of a loving god certainly not an omnipotent conscious one. If you disagree I would love to hear your reasoning.

Falsifiability (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:09:20 +0000

> Romansh: I would argue a loving God in any common use of the word loving is falsifiable.-Your basis? Religious statements, religious wars?

Falsifiability (reply)

romansh — Sun, 21 Jun 2015 17:04:21 +0000

Auguste Comte, Cours de la Philosophie Positive, 1835. >... we shall never be able by any means to study their [stars] chemical composition or their mineralogical structure ... Our knowledge concerning their gaseous envelopes is necessarily limited to their existence, size ... and refractive power, we shall not at all be able to determine their chemical composition or even their density...-Fourteen years later Kirchhoff discovered the chemical composition of a gas could be deduced from its electromagnetic spectrum and people turned their spectrometers to the Sun and the stars.-I would argue a loving God in any common use of the word loving is falsifiable.

Falsifiability; necessary (reply)

David Turell — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:04:43 +0000

> dhw: It's all pots and kettles. Atheists mock theists for believing in the hypothesis of an eternal intelligence, and theists mock atheists for believing in the hypothesis of a multiverse. Science doesn't come into either belief, and how can it, since the objects of both beliefs are unfalsifiable, untestable and unobservable (unless God decides to put in an appearance)? Yep, pots and kettles. If science is not agnostic, it's not science.-This is where faith rears its ugly head, for those who wish to be convinced by their own innate logic. We are allowed faith if we wish.