See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Comments
Silver Asiatic: Nothingness = non-being
That's not an answer. What is the distinction between the cosmological concept of the absence of matter, energy, space, time, and even physical laws, and nothingness as you construe it?Zachriel
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Zachriel #570: As pointed out previously, definitions aren’t determined by the scientific method, but by convention and usage. Terms for specific scientific concepts may be used for communications, and sometimes those terms may have other, more general meanings. For instance, gravity originally mean heavy or serious, but was coopted by scientists to refer to the force of attraction between masses.Silver Asiatic: No, you didn’t point that out at all.
#368, #516, #522, #559.Zachriel
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
What is the distinction between the cosmological concept of the absence of matter, energy, space, time, and even physical laws, and nothingness as you construe it?
This has been explained several times already in this thread. Which of those posts didn't you understand?
Nothingness = non-being
kairosfocus: I repeat, simply: a quantum vacuum hosting fluctuations etc is not non-being.Silver Asiatic
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Box
“Those who wish to continually redefine the word (…)”??
... expose their agenda.Silver Asiatic
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
As pointed out previously
Hi Me_Think. No, you didn't point that out at all.Silver Asiatic
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Krauss:
(...) the simplest version of nothing, namely empty space. For the moment, I will assume space exists, with nothing at all in it, and that the laws of physics also exist. Once again, I realise that in the revised versions of nothingness that those who wish to continually redefine the word so that no scientific definition is practical, this version of nothing doesn’t cut the mustard.
[page 149]
"Those who wish to continually redefine the word (...)"??Box
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: An entirely new term which omits the use of ‘nothing’ would obviously add more clarity.
What is the distinction between the cosmological concept of the absence of matter, energy, space, time, and even physical laws, and nothingness as you construe it?Zachriel
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: The first definition is 1a below.
noth·ing·ness noun \-n?s\ : empty space
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nothingness
Silver Asiatic: Give some scientific evidence to support that re-definition of the term ‘nothing’.
As pointed out previously, definitions aren't determined by the scientific method, but by convention and usage. Terms for specific scientific concepts may be used for communications, and sometimes those terms may have other, more general meanings. For instance, gravity originally mean heavy or serious, but was coopted by scientists to refer to the force of attraction between masses.Zachriel
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
KF
In this context it is quite plain that there is no good reason to abandon the meaning of nothing, non-being.
That's right. What we've seen in this discussion is very clear on this key point.
If you want a term to identify a quantum vacuum with fluctuations, get your own term.
Exactly. It's fascinating to see how the redefinition of the term 'nothing' is claimed to add more clarity when it is clearly an attempt to smuggle new entities into the state of non-existence. This is a classic propaganda technique. Note the resistance to the use of an entirely new term. Instead, it will be insisted that the term 'nothing' should be retained, but with various modifiers (Kraussian, cosmological, etc).
a In a pinch an acrostic set of initials will do, as it did for radar and laser or even ascii or QWERTY: QVWF or whatever. KF
If we were talking about objective, unbiased science, that would be non-controversial and easily accepted. An entirely new term which omits the use of 'nothing' would obviously add more clarity. But that proposal is not accepted for obvious reasons.
PS: MT a scroll up will show that there has been a problem of confusing mis-use of a term that properly denotes non-being, and that Mr Krauss’ popularisation served no good end.
"No good end" a generous way to characterize what has been going on with this linguistic game.Silver Asiatic
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
F/N: It is a characteristic of things that have a philosophical tinge that what they mean is a significant issue above and beyond how some folks may use the term. In this context it is quite plain that there is no good reason to abandon the meaning of nothing, non-being. If you want a term to identify a quantum vacuum with fluctuations, get your own term. In a pinch an acrostic set of initials will do, as it did for radar and laser or even ascii or QWERTY: QVWF or whatever. KF
PS: MT a scroll up will show that there has been a problem of confusing mis-use of a term that properly denotes non-being, and that Mr Krauss' popularisation served no good end.kairosfocus
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
SA @ 566,
Give some scientific evidence to support that re-definition of the term ‘nothing’. Failing that, explain why your (Krauss’) definition is the correct meaning of ‘nothing’.
There is no 're-definition'. It has already been explained why nothing in cosmology is 'nothing'.Me_Think
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Me_Think
It has been clearly stated that ‘Nothing’ in cosmology was defined and popularized by Kruass and he means ‘ no space-time, matter or energy’. What more do you want?
Give some scientific evidence to support that re-definition of the term 'nothing'. Failing that, explain why your (Krauss') definition is the correct meaning of 'nothing'.Silver Asiatic
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Zac
The first definition in Merriam-Webster is “empty space”.
If your science is dependent on the authority of Merriam-Webster that tells us a lot. There's a non-science agenda driving your conclusions.
Of course, you're still playing games. The first definition is 1a below.
From Merriam-Webster.com
Full Definition of NOTHINGNESS
1: the quality or state of being nothing: as
a : nonexistence
b : utter insignificance
c : death
2
: something insignificant or valueless
3
: void, emptinessSilver Asiatic
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: It’s an argument about the meaning of the term ‘nothingness’.
The first definition in Merriam-Webster is "empty space". The scientific concept of empty space, a.k.a. the vacuum, differs from the popular conception. In any case, nothingness, as discussed in cosmology, has a specific meaning.Zachriel
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
SA @ 562,
It has been clearly stated that 'Nothing' in cosmology was defined and popularized by Kruass and he means ' no space-time, matter or energy'. What more do you want?
You have been stating in other threads that : By definition, God is being or existence itself
How do you know ? Where is the proof. What is the meaning of 'existence itself' ? Where is it defined scientifically?Me_Think
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT
Zac
Did you have something to offer besides an argument over semantics?
It's an argument about the meaning of the term 'nothingness'. You already stated that you have no scientific support for the redefinition of the term, so there's nothing more for either you or Me_Think to say except (quoting 'Them'): "take what I say to be true".
I understand quite well what you're doing.Silver Asiatic
January 14, 2015
January
01
Jan
14
14
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: As I said, it’s a game of redefining terms.
Or rather, providing a more precise definition in place of a vague one.
Silver Asiatic: In this case, it is creating new terms to replace the one under discussion, ‘nothingness’.
Or rather, providing a more precise definition in place of a vague one. We do this in order to more clearly communicate. Did you have something to offer besides an argument over semantics?Zachriel
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: The point you [Me_Think] are avoiding is that there is a non-scientific process used to establish terminology.
Zac: You apparently haven’t read our [my, Zac's] comments even though you are responding to them.
You apparently can't distinguish between something directed to Me_Think and something directed to you.
Silver Asiatic: Fred is ok, but arbitrary transformation is not.
You could call it 22065231, but people generally prefer something that relates somehow to the topic.
If terminology is assigned based on what people generally prefer, then the question of what 'nothing' means, proposed by Me_Think is insoluble.
Silver Asiatic: You simply claim or assert this.
Zac: We know that because Krauss defines it so.
As I said, it's a game of redefining terms. You denied this, but you reveal it to be just that.
If it would help, just use the adjective, as in Kraussian nothingness.
In this case, it is creating new terms to replace the one under discussion, 'nothingness'. This is how the game is played.Silver Asiatic
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: You might consider letting Me_Think speak for himself rather than answer questions I posed to him.
Our answering doesn't prevent his answering. As the question concerned a fair reading of a phrase, it was reasonable to answer.
Silver Asiatic: The point you are avoiding is that there is a non-scientific process used to establish terminology.
You apparently haven't read our comments even though you are responding to them.
Silver Asiatic: Naming something is not empirical science.
Zachriel: Of course not. It’s convention.
In scholarly fields, special words or meanings are often used to distinguish between ordinary language and the meaning intended within a field. Sometimes, new terms are coined, such as natural selection. Latin is often used to avoid to avoid overlap with more common words. Confusion might be avoided by using an adjective, such as quantum vacuum. Other times, ad hoc terms are adopted, which may or may not become the standard term due to historical happenstance.
Silver Asiatic: Fred is ok, but arbitrary transformation is not.
You could call it 22065231, but people generally prefer something that relates somehow to the topic.
Silver Asiatic: You simply claim or assert this.
Kraussian nothingness is defined as the absence of matter, energy, space and time, and perhaps even physical laws. We know that because Krauss defines it so. He chose the word nothing because the word most closely resembles his meaning. If it would help, just use the adjective, as in Kraussian nothingness.Zachriel
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Krauss introduced and popularized the term ‘Nothing’ in cosmology, so of course, if you want to understand why ‘nothing’ is ‘nothing’ in cosmology, you have to either read his papers or book or take what I say to be true.
You can't give any evidence why the term should mean what Krauss claims it means. But you're also seeming to claim that he has scientific evidence in his papers that indicate that the term should mean what he claims.
There is no such scientific evidence.Silver Asiatic
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
SA,
When asked for evidence that the term ‘nothing’ means what you asserted, you said:
Me_Think: If you want to know the physics and math of how virtual particles are created in Nothing, please read Kruass’ papers. If you want a layman’s overview read his books.
Krauss introduced and popularized the term 'Nothing' in cosmology, so of course, if you want to understand why 'nothing' is 'nothing' in cosmology, you have to either read his papers or book or take what I say to be true.Me_Think
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
Me_Think: We are tired of explaining that Nothing of cosmology (no space-time, radiation, matter) conveys the meaning aptly in context of cosmology.
You claim that "Nothing" is "Nothing of cosmology" and it means what you said.
SA: You simply claim or assert this. When asked for evidence you didn’t respond.
You should be able to see, that you simply claimed something about the meaning of the term. You gave no scientific evidence to support that. When asked for evidence that the term 'nothing' means what you asserted, you said:
Me_Think: If you want to know the physics and math of how virtual particles are created in Nothing, please read Kruass’ papers. If you want a layman’s overview read his books.
You avoided the point.
SA: The point you are avoiding is that there is a non-scientific process used to establish terminology.
And that's what I said.
Me_Think: We have no idea what you are driving at.
I can accept this. You don't understand.Silver Asiatic
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
SA,
The point you are avoiding is that there is a non-scientific process used to establish terminology.
We have no idea what you are driving at. Did you not understand my comment @ 512:
Some times it starts with an insult – like Big Bang, which was an insult. Hoyle insulted Lemaitre’s idea by calling it Big Bang. Higgs particle was never meant to be God Particle or even Higgs particle. In fact many physicists informally called it Goddamn particle, because it is hard to find. It is generally left to the scientists and media to play out and popularize a name. Scientists generally suck at Christening their inventions/ discoveries. If you feel it is not right, you can’t do much about it.
Me_Think
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
SA
You might consider letting Me_Think speak for himself rather than answer questions I posed to him.
This is an open forum, if a person understands your question, he can answer.If it is wrong, I will correct it. As it stands, Zac's answer is right. Thanks Zac.
You simply claim or assert this. When asked for evidence you didn’t respond.
If you want to know the physics and math of how virtual particles are created in Nothing, please read Kruass' papers. If you want a layman's overview read his books.Me_Think
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Me_Think
We are tired of explaining that Nothing of cosmology (no space-time, radiation, matter) conveys the meaning aptly in context of cosmology.
You simply claim or assert this. When asked for evidence you didn't respond.Silver Asiatic
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT
Zac said,
When Darwin proposed natural selection as a mechanism of adaptation, he could have called it Fred
Zac then said:
“Arbitrary transformation” would not encapsulate the concept of natural selection.
Fred is ok, but arbitrary transformation is not.
There's a classic example of obfuscation and double-speak. It's agenda-driven, linguistic-engineering which is the basic stuff of all propaganda.
Nothing new here at all.Silver Asiatic
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT
Zac
The response was meant to show that a fair reading of “science” was as scientists or the scientific community. The meaning was clear, or could have been easily clarified. It certainly wasn’t playing with definitions, but a standard use of colloquial English.
You might consider letting Me_Think speak for himself rather than answer questions I posed to him.
Silver Asiatic: Yes, he could have called ‘natural selection’, “Creation by God”.
That term was already in use for a different conception of origins.
Science already was using the term "Creation by God" for a conception of origins?
The point you are avoiding is that there is a non-scientific process used to establish terminology.
As you debate the meaning of the term 'nothing', you're not using any science to defend your position. You seem to be creating arbitrary rules for definitions (a term was 'already used'). You have shown no scientific procedures used to establish terms (could have been called 'Fred', although the term 'Fred' is already used for other purposes).
Your response is game-playing and bluffing. I think others can see it quite clearly.Silver Asiatic
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Do you honestly think that my side in this debate disagrees with that statement?
That sugar-coating makes it easier for people to accept the reality of evolution?Zachriel
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Zac says,
Is that the part you wanted us to read?
I say,
The whole thing was informative IMO.
Do you honestly think that my side in this debate disagrees with that statement?
If you do that explains a lot,
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 13, 2015
January
01
Jan
13
13
2015
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: For a possible explanation of the amazing logical disconnect we are seeing here in otherwise intelligent people check this out
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/education-plus-ideology-exaggerates-rejection-of-reality/
{The poll} asked “Is there general agreement among scientists that humans have evolved over time, or not?” (This phrasing generally makes it easier for people to accept the reality of evolution, since it's not asking about their personal beliefs.)