See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Comments
fifthmonarchyman: spoken like a true materialist.
It was a question.
Box (quoting third-hand criticism): For one thing, physicists themselves, including Krauss and Hawking, do not treat the laws of physics as if they were either logically necessary
That's the question which physicists are trying to answer. The Big Bang suggests a state beyond matter, energy, space and time. Study of the singularity may or may not yield to scientific inquiry.
In any case, you have apparently abandoned the fine-tuning argument, so that is something.
fifthmonarchyman: The vaccum was thought to contain aether ...
But it doesn't, of course.
fifthmonarchyman: ... and it certainly contains potentiality
Even in classical physics, an enclosed vacuum is not so simple as it can transmit electromagnetic radiation.
fifthmonarchyman: I’m not wedded to these terms you could call it flubber if you like just don’t call it nothing because it is not nothing
The term nothingness is probably already established, though once it is better understood, it might be modified appropriately, perhaps as the 'nothingness of the singularity'.
kairosfocus: I repeat, simply: a quantum vacuum hosting fluctuations etc is not non-being.
So you keep repeating and repeating and repeating, and no one contests.
The original conception of the vacuum was that it was nothingness. The idea that space and time could be bent or even not exist was not something people grasped before relativity theory.Zachriel
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
KF:
The basic point is made: nothing, is just that. No-thing, non-being.
As a dualist, I have to disagree with this definition. If nothing is the true opposite of something, then it must exist by logical necessity. Since this is equally unacceptable, I must conclude that our concept of nothing is flawed. In my view, NOTHING is EVERYTHING and vice versa. ONENESS is NOTHINGNESS. This is why zero, unlike all other numbers, is neither positive nor negative but both. It is the sum of everything positive positive and negative.
At the Zen master said to the hot dog vendor, "Make me one with everything." :-D
Regarding the so-called quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, it is important to understand that there are no plausible hypotheses in mainstream physics to explain the fluctuations. The materialist/atheist is fervently and religiously hoping that fluctuations are proof of matter being spontaneously created out of nothing but the evidence does not support their wishful thinking. Causality is not something that you can mess with and go home to brag about.
There are strong reasons to suppose that we live in a 4-dimensional "spatial" universe and that our entire visible 3-d universe of ordinary matter is moving at c in one the 4 dimensions. We can only see a miniscule and fleeting 3-d slice of the vacuum at every instant. In other words, we are continually experiencing the appearance and immediate disappearance of a succession of 3-d vacuum slices at every instantaneous Planck time. The fluctuations are simply the result of our sudden collision with particles that are already in the 4-d vacuum. Just saying.Mapou
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
FFM:
velikovskys asks
What are your qualifications to make that judgement ?
I say,
I know that something is not nothing.
"So something from nothing is not in Krauss’ field of expertise.
In fact his comments show he knows next to nothing about the subject."
What do you know about how "something comes from nothing" to be so sure that Krauss is mistaken scientifically about the origin of the universe? After all that is the only area that his scientific expertise is relevant.
As for Incarnation perhaps I misunderstood your view, Thought you believed it was necessary for the spirit to become part of that which it creates in order to create that which it creates, that nothing has to be something before something can be created from nothing.velikovskys
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Z, I repeat, simply: a quantum vacuum hosting fluctuations etc is not non-being. KFkairosfocus
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
zac says
we don’t call the classical vacuum the potentiality or the aether.
I say
The vaccum was thought to contain aether and it certainly contains potentiality
I'm not wedded to these terms you could call it flubber if you like just don't call it nothing because it is not nothing
peacefifthmonarchyman
Having for the sake of argument described a scenario in which not even space-time or mass-energy exist but the laws of quantum mechanics do -- he calls this “the physicists’ Nothing,” and it is essentially what Krauss and Hawking have in mind in their accounts -- Kuhn writes:
What physicists contemplate -- the sudden emergence or “tunneling” of universes from “Nothing” -- is fascinating and indeed may be cosmogenic, but the tunneling process or capacity is not Nothing. The Nothing of physicists is thick with the complete set of the laws of physics, and so between the physicists’ Nothing and Real Nothing lies a vast, unbridgeable gulf.
Moreover, Kuhn does not regard the fundamental laws of physics, whatever they turn out to be, as a plausible terminus of explanation. For to be that, they would have to be either logically necessary or an inexplicable brute fact, and neither supposition is credible. Writes Kuhn:
I doubt I could ever get over the odd idea that something so intricate, so involved, so organized and so accessible as the laws of physics would be the ultimate brute fact.
I would add that it is crucial to emphasize that the point by no means rests on mere intuition. For one thing, physicists themselves, including Krauss and Hawking, do not treat the laws of physics as if they were either logically necessary or a brute fact. For they regard such laws as empirically testable, which would make no sense if they were logically necessary (i.e. the sort of thing the denial of which would entail a contradiction). If they can in principle be falsified, then they are not necessary.
edit: Laws must relate to something. Hence there is something other than laws present in the 'physicists' Nothing'. By their own admission something unstable and complicated.Box
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman says,
"You always complain when you are labeled a materialist why not prove you are not one by answering your own question."
Seems to me someone once mentioned he is a theistic evolutionist, so I'm not sure if that qualifies as materialist or maybe not.DavidD
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Zac says
Can you tell us what remains if there is no matter, energy, space or time?
I say,
spoken like a true materialist.
You always complain when you are labeled a materialist why not prove you are not one by answering your own question.
If you can't you should rightly question your worldview
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Why not coin a new term like the potentiality.
Those terms don't seem to describe the situation. For instance, we don't call the classical vacuum the potentiality or the aether.
fifthmonarchyman: I can think of no term that would be as misleading as “nothingness”
Can you tell us what remains if there is no matter, energy, space or time?Zachriel
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT
Zac says
What would you prefer to call the abstraction entailing the absence of matter, energy, space and time?
I say
Why not coin a new term like the potentiality.
or why not go back to an old one like the aether
I can think of no term that would be as misleading as "nothingness"
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
Zachriel: The nothingness in question is when there is no matter, energy, space or time.
Nothing is not just the absence of A,B and C. Nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever.Box
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: The 4 steps to insanity
That's hardly insanity. You might consider it conflation. However, if someone were to show that the absence of matter, energy, space and time was unstable, that would be a significant finding, and would have a bearing on the origin of the Big Bang singularity. It's just speculation, of course, and the reality is probably even stranger than that.
fifthmonarchyman: 1) Define nothing as everything but X
What would you prefer to call the abstraction entailing the absence of matter, energy, space and time?Zachriel
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Zac says,
The nothingness in question is when there is no matter, energy, space or time.
I say
The 4 steps to insanity
1) Define nothing as everything but X
2) Acknowledge the obvious fact that X has a cause
3) Claim that X was caused by nothing
4) Claim special profound incite because you are an expert in X
peace
PS
Substitute "this ham sandwich" for X to get an idea of the stupidity going on herefifthmonarchyman
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Box: And again, ‘something is nothing’ is the hypothesis Krauss proposes.
The hypothesis is that the absence of matter, energy, space and time is unstable, hence, something. This is analogous to previous notions of nothingness, the absence of matter and energy is unstable, hence something.Zachriel
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
Box: What it all boils down to is this: something is not nothing.
Zachriel: And again, that is not the hypothesis Krauss proposes.
And again, 'something is nothing' is the hypothesis Krauss proposes.Box
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Box: And that is testimonial to Krauss’ misunderstanding. Obviously one cannot operationalize the “absence of anything whatsoever”.
That is your claim, but simply handwaving in the general direction of 'obvious' isn't support for that claim.
Box: What it all boils down to is this: something is not nothing.
And again, that is not the hypothesis Krauss proposes.
kairosfocus: Or even, taking the alternative low density route, energy is still energy and space is still space.
Yes, the conception of nothingness has changed over time. The nothingness in question is when there is no matter, energy, space or time.Zachriel
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
Okay,
The basic point is made: nothing, is just that. No-thing, non-being.
Including, not a spatial field with vacuum energy and quantum fluctuations, with a reasonable argument pointing to a huge energy density. Or even, taking the alternative low density route, energy is still energy and space is still space.
Obviously, such is something, not nothing.
But it is obvious that we are seeing scientism, the assumption that all serious knowledge comes dressed in a lab coat. Hence, the disinclination to listen to philosophers and others who listen to them (even if we may have the right to the lab coat and may also glow faintly blue-green in the dark).
Net result is, one most easily slips over into a less than thought-through philosophical -- esp. metaphysical, epistemological and logical -- view when one traipses in blindly.
But, blind scientism so easily leads to clinging to the absurd.
So, again, let us remind ourselves that the notion that "science is the only begetter of truth" etc is an ill-informed philosophical claim and is self-refuting.
In that context, let us therefore see that regardless of how rhetorically convenient it may seem to re-label a hypothetical quantum vacuum spatial domain as "nothing" by virtue of the fact that we are discussing something (even something with spatial extension) it is just that, something.
Nothing, again, is non-being, and error dressed up in a lab coat is still error.
Amazing, that this has to be hammered home so hard, over and over again.
KFkairosfocus
January 11, 2015
January
01
Jan
11
11
2015
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT
CharlieM @465:
Mapou @ 443:
You are mistaken, IMO. If the material universe comes from spirit, then it would be spirit. It isn’t. Rather, it is more correct to say that the material universe was caused to exist by spirits with creative powers. There should be no doubt as to there being a distinction between matter and spirit. In fact, they are opposites.
Mapou, your logic doesn’t hold up. If a liquid comes from a gas, then we don’t say that it is a gas.
I never said that there is no distinction between matter and spirit. Matter is to spirit as ice crystals are to the water from which they form. In areas such as the voids in space and within atoms there may be no physical substance, but IMO we would be wrong to say that there is no spirit.
Your worldview is so different from mine, I see no point in continuing this discussion. Hopefully, we'll talk again in the future. I mean, you're talking about "voids in space and within atoms" but I don't even believe in the existence of such things.Mapou
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
Feser:
Lawrence Krauss’s book A Universe from Nothing managed something few thought possible -- to outdo Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion in sheer intellectual frivolousness. Nor was my First Things review of the book by any means the only one to call attention to its painfully evident foibles. Many commentators with no theological ax to grind -- such as David Albert, Massimo Pigliucci, Brian Leiter, and even New Atheist featherweight Jerry Coyne -- slammed Krauss’s amateurish foray into philosophy.
Here’s some take-to-the-bank advice to would-be atheist provocateurs: When even Jerry Coyne thinks your attempt at atheist apologetics “mediocre,” it’s time to throw in the towel. Causa finita est. Game over. Shut the hell up already.
Box
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Krauss discusses their views in his book, including how science has operationalized the concept.
Yes indeed. And that is testimonial to Krauss' misunderstanding. Obviously one cannot operationalize the “absence of anything whatsoever”. What it all boils down to is this: something is not nothing.Box
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: So something from nothing is not in Krauss’ field of expertise.
He discusses exactly what he means by nothingness in context of the history of the concept, in relation to quantum mechanics, and in relation to the speculation about the singularity.
fifthmonarchyman: In fact his comments show he knows next to nothing about the subject.
Heh. Sure. Krauss doesn't understand the quantum vacuum.
Box: Something went wrong there, because philosophers have to explain the meaning of nothing to Krauss again and again.
Krauss discusses their views in his book, including how science has operationalized the concept.
Box: It’s very simple actually: nothing is the “absence of anything whatsoever” – including a quantum vacuum. Not much to discuss here.
In this case, he's talking about no matter, energy, space or time. The Big Bang implies a singularity where time and space come into being.
fifthmonarchyman: I know that something is not nothing.
That's not the hypothesis.Zachriel
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
velikovskys asks
What are your qualifications to make that judgement ?
I say,
I know that something is not nothing.
you say,
I thought you believed it was necessary for the Spiit to become Incarnate in order to create the material world.
I say,
well
I believe that incarnation and creation are intimately related. In fact I believe that the incarnation is a major perhaps a primary reason for the creation.
I would be willing to entertain an argument that incarnation is necessary for creation.
That seems to be a far cry from claiming as Mapou does "that If the material universe comes from spirit, then it would be spirit."
peacefifthmonarchyman
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
Mapou @ 443:
You are mistaken, IMO. If the material universe comes from spirit, then it would be spirit. It isn’t. Rather, it is more correct to say that the material universe was caused to exist by spirits with creative powers. There should be no doubt as to there being a distinction between matter and spirit. In fact, they are opposites.
Mapou, your logic doesn't hold up. If a liquid comes from a gas, then we don't say that it is a gas.
I never said that there is no distinction between matter and spirit. Matter is to spirit as ice crystals are to the water from which they form. In areas such as the voids in space and within atoms there may be no physical substance, but IMO we would be wrong to say that there is no spirit.CharlieM
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
Ffm
So something from nothing is not in Krauss’ field of expertise.
In fact his comments show he knows next to nothing about the subject.
What are your qualifications to make that judgement ?
Mapou claims,
If the material universe comes from spirit, then it would be spirit.
I say,
Why?
quote:
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and by the breath (Spirit) of his mouth all their host.
(Psa 33:6)
and
The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath (Spirit) of the Almighty gives me life.
I thought you believed it was necessary for the Spiit to become Incarnate in order to create the material world.velikovskys
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Furthermore, he discusses how philosophers use the term.
Something went wrong there, because philosophers have to explain the meaning of nothing to Krauss again and again.
It's very simple actually: nothing is the "absence of anything whatsoever" - including a quantum vacuum. Not much to discuss here.
Krauss should have adopted that definition of nothing.Box
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
ZAc said,
Because experts are more likely to be correct about matters within their field of expertise than non-experts
I say.
Vacuum energy is not nothing, neither is the quantum vacuum.
So something from nothing is not in Krauss' field of expertise.
In fact his comments show he knows next to nothing about the subject.
Again your inability to grant that Scientists are not infallible about everything is very telling. Just imagine what you sound like to others.
You can have the last word
Peacefifthmonarchyman
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Box: Indeed.
Krauss discusses the nature of the vacuum, including quantum fluctuations. Furthermore, he discusses how philosophers use the term, and whether or not removing space and time is sufficient to render it nothingness in the philosophical sense. He considers all of this, then argues that science has changed the playing field by operationalizing the abstract concept of nothingness.Zachriel
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Box: Even if there was a classical view that equated nothing with the vacuum, which I doubt very much, then it was up to Krauss to simply inform us that the vacuum is NOT nothing – that the classical view “nothing = vacuum” is incorrect. It was not up to Krauss to inform us that nothing is something.
Zachriel: Which he does.
Indeed. And that was a stupid mistake by Krauss. Everyone knows that something is not nothing.
--
Kairosfocus #409: In short, amazing though it is to have to say it: something is not the same as nothing.
Box
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
fifthmonarchyman: Again why?
Because experts are more likely to be correct about matters within their field of expertise than non-experts, especially when there is a consensus in the field (in this case, vacuum energy) and the expert is expressing that consensus.Zachriel
January 10, 2015
January
01
Jan
10
10
2015
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Zac says.
No, but it’s reasonable to assume that someone who deals with quantum mechanics for a scientific profession would know the elementary facts.
I say,
Again why? Often otherwise smart folks believe things that are just plain goofy. This especially evident when their most treasured beliefs are at stake
check it out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception
peacefifthmonarchyman