Kirk Durston takes on Larry Krauss on whether the universe could come from nothing

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 14, 2021

Big Bang, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Readers will remember Larry Krauss from a number of contexts. Here’s Kirk Durston:

Did “nothing” create the universe?

Could it?

Comments

Of course you don't have any idea what I'm talking about. All you would have to do is scroll back to where your wrote:
We do not live in a “space-time continuum . . . ”
So what's you're theory to replace Einstein's space-time (later to be completed by Minkowski)? You might want to review http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html
For a thing to be created, under the traditional concept of space-time, space-time must already exist. It’s a true self-referential absurdity to say space-time “was created” or “began.”
Current scientific evidence indicates a beginning for space-time called "the big bang." Please explain why the big bang theory is "a true self-referential absurdity." Waiting expectantly for even more unsupported assertions . . . -QQuerius_{July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Q, Unfortunately, I have no idea what you are talking about when you ask me to "explain to everyone where Einstein went wrong by your theory."William J Murray_{July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

William J Murray, You evaded my points by asking me to answer a bunch of term questions for you, at which you can then take potshots. No thanks. Look up the English words in a dictionary. Then, explain to everyone where Einstein went wrong by your theory. -QQuerius_{July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT}

Q, The point of my questions was to show that your questions depend on a particular ontological perspective for them to even make sense as meaningful questions. And, they are incredibly vague even from the old perspective. What is time? What does it mean for time to "exist?" Can you even answer those questions from your ontological perspective? I ask because, as far as I know, even physicists can't answer those questions.William J Murray_{July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

(Crickets from William J Murray)Querius_{July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

William J Murray, Evasive at all points. You forgot to ask what I meant by "is." Buy a dictionary and look up the words. Then explain to us where Einstein went wrong by your theory. -QQuerius_{July 18, 2021
July
07
Jul
18
18
2021
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Q asks:
How would a tesseract appear in 3D minus the perspective distortion shown in most illustrations?
Like a bas relief of Charles Howard Hinton.William J Murray_{July 18, 2021
July
07
Jul
18
18
2021
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Q said:
• How can “information potential” exist outside of time?
This is a vague, virtually incoherent question. What do you mean "exist?" What do you mean by "outside" of time? What do you mean by "time?"
Did time exist before the big bang? • Can time exist without space (i.e. Space-time)?
What does it mean for "time" to "exist?" What does it mean for "space" to exist? Where would "space" exist, if not in some pre-existing or higher-dimensional "space," ad infinitum? IOW, where would you create "space?" What would you create it out of? Where was the stuff you created it out of in the first place, if you hadn't created "space" yet? What does it mean to "create" time? What was the situation before "time" was created? If there was no "time" before time itself was created, how could there be a "before" time was create so that at some point time itself could not exist, and then be created? These are incoherent questions because space-time is an intrinsically incoherent concept because they necessarily, ultimately depend on infinite regression, even if you throw in God. The concept of "outside of space-time" requires a space-time outside of spacetime for God to exist in and for God to create anything. There's no such thing as a actual space-time continuum. There is only the sequential, orderly physical experience we have mistaken for such. Lesia said:
It seems that you need to add more context in order to state the nonexistence of a square circle.
Yes. The context I need is a listener who understands basic logic, apparently.William J Murray_{July 18, 2021
July
07
Jul
18
18
2021
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

William J Murray @28,29
yes, I do understand. Do you?
No, I don’t think you understand space-time. Otherwise you would have answered my questions: • How can “information potential” exist outside of time? • Did time exist before the big bang? • Can time exist without space (i.e. Space-time)? Instead, you ducked the questions. But please feel free to enlighten us on where Einstein went wrong on space-time. Back up your theory, because simply making assertions in this case is better termed “science fantasy.” Since you don’t understand 2D projections, a step down in dimensional representation, let’s try it one more time from a fourth linear dimension as perceived in 3D. How would a tesseract appear in 3D minus the perspective distortion shown in most illustrations? -QQuerius_{July 18, 2021
July
07
Jul
18
18
2021
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @28, It seems that you need to add more context in order to state the nonexistence of a square circle. If you choose the taxicab metric on the plane, your circles will start to look as squares :)Lesia_{July 18, 2021
July
07
Jul
18
18
2021
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT}

Q asks:
How can “information potential” exist outside of time? Did time exist before the big bang? Can time exist without space (i.e. Space-time)?
Space and time do not exist as we normally think of them; again, this is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including the results of repeated quantum experiments. We do not live in a "space-time continuum, and it is nonsensical to think in terms of space-time being "created." For a thing to be created, under the traditional concept of space-time, space-time must already exist. It's a true self-referential absurdity to say space-time "was created" or "began."William J Murray_{July 18, 2021
July
07
Jul
18
18
2021
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

Q: yes, I do understand. Do you? The cylinder is never a square or a circle, much less a square circle. A visual image of a 2D circle morphing into a square, or vice-versa, from a perspective, regardless of what is causing it (the cylinder), is not a square circle. There's no such thing as a square circle. You can never observe a square circle.William J Murray_{July 18, 2021
July
07
Jul
18
18
2021
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

CD, we are aware of the joke and it is a fail, as the tails are such that 2 + 2 gives 5 on certain cases fails. Generally, giving integers is not a sign of error-bar values but exact units, and worse the context is the natural numbers, N not Q or R. The truth is, Krauss tried to evade the force of a self-evident truth by diverting context. AKA, red herring led off to a straw man. KFkairosfocus_{July 18, 2021
July
07
Jul
18
18
2021
02:19 AM
2
02
19
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @25, Do you not understand what a 2D projection of a 3D object is? To put it another way, imagine a cylinder passing through a 2D planar surface. The 2D intersection of the cylinder and the 2D plane will have different shapes depending on its orientation. It can be a circle, a square, or an infinite number of shapes in between. -QQuerius_{July 17, 2021
July
07
Jul
17
17
2021
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT}

Q @21 said:
I prefer referring to the Easter Bunny as an example of nothing or non-existence because an object that’s both a square and circle in 2D can indeed exist in 3D (projections of a cylinder with the same length as its diameter).
3D objects are not squares or circles, which are 2D objects. There's no such thing as a square circle.
Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
This has been my experience and observation over decades of experimenting with my idealism reality theory. The results are miraculous, indeed.William J Murray_{July 17, 2021
July
07
Jul
17
17
2021
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT}

CD, that is a lame excuse. Krauss knew exactly what he was doing during the debate and did not make any caveats whatsoever during the debate, or after the debate, about rounding errors when Dr. Craig challenged him directly on the fact that “2+2=4” follows from the axioms of Peano arithmetic," (And even your own citation trying to cover Krauss's behind, is not even from Krauss, trying to clear up any misunderstandings he may have conveyed in the debate about claiming 2+2=5, but is instead from someone who "holds no advanced degrees')
William Lane Craig vs. Lawrence Krauss debate Excerpt: He (Krauss) says, “But 2+2 does not necessarily equal 4!” (Yet) “2+2=4” follows from the axioms of Peano arithmetic, which are necessary truths. I cannot believe that he would deny logically necessary, mathematical truths in order to avoid theism. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/the-craig-krauss-debate-at-north-carolina-state-university/
At least Krauss can claim to be 'woke' on mathematics, (2+2=5) way before being 'woke' on math was even cool! :)bornagain77_{July 16, 2021
July
07
Jul
16
16
2021
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin @22, You're forgetting about precision. This is the difference between counting and measuring. The 1.5 and 2.5 in your example have two significant digits. There are several ways of signifying precision in measurements including scientific notation. The erroneous 2 + 2 = 5 is assumed to be counting, not measurement. -QQuerius_{July 16, 2021
July
07
Jul
16
16
2021
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

re BornAgain77 #14 This is my last post on this subject but I wanted to point out that Krauss' famous T-shirt "2 + 2 = 5" is an inside joke among physicists and engineers (one I'm sure that Durston, as a physicist, is familiar with, but fails to contextualize). To quote Thiago Gasparino, an electrical engineer posting at Quora on the Krauss-WLC debate: "Every measurement we do has rounding errors. In Physics (also Engineering and other fields), when we say '2' of a measure, it means anything between 1.5 and 2.5. When we say 2.0 it means anything between 1.95 and 2.05, and so on. So, the whole quote is '2 + 2 = 5 for very large values of 2'. This is what [Krauss] means, he is referring to rounding errors. I know this because this is what physicists and engineers mean when they say this. It’s an inside joke, it’s funny if you understand it." (https://www.quora.com/What-does-Lawrence-Krauss-mean-when-he-says-2+2-5) It is unfortunate that Christian apologists like WLC don't have much of a sense of humor. But I suppose if I were facing the eternal wrath of a humorless God, I'd be more circumspect too. Ciao........chuckdarwin_{July 16, 2021
July
07
Jul
16
16
2021
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @19, Correct. The riddlle also shows Krauss's stupid misuse of language in when he writes a book about nothing. William J Murray @20, How can "information potential" exist outside of time? Did time exist before the big bang? Can time exist without space (i.e. Space-time)? I prefer referring to the Easter Bunny as an example of nothing or non-existence because an object that's both a square and circle in 2D can indeed exist in 3D (projections of a cylinder with the same length as its diameter). Quantum Mechanics does indeed force us into accepting the fundamentals of reality as being information/measurement, consciousness, causality, entanglement, conjugate variables, space-time, probability, along with chaos and likely others. But there must be more because the interaction of these do produce the material universe . . . or a holographic universe.
The only question is if there are limitations to what a consciousness can draw from potential into experience.
Good question. Consider for a moment what Jesus said as recorded in Matthew 17:
Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
Is that really just a metaphor? Jesus (and Peter) walked on water, turned water into wine, entered a room through locked doors, and performed many miracles such as healing with the explanation of "Your faith has made you well." Specifically addressing limitations, Jesus also said https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Asking-In-Jesus-Name There's your potential. -QQuerius_{July 16, 2021
July
07
Jul
16
16
2021
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

IMO, the term "quantum foam" is just a way of "materializing" informational potential. Although they are not talking about a true "nothing," it must be stated clearly that there is no such thing as "nothing." It's an absurd concept, like a square circle. Potential necessarily exists because "nothing" cannot "exist," and the existence of any particular thing is concomitant with the potential for all possible things. All possible things exist in that potential, and it seems that it is consciousness that "actualizes" potential into experience. The only question is if there are limitations to what a consciousness can draw from potential into experience.William J Murray_{July 16, 2021
July
07
Jul
16
16
2021
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

Q, of course, 0, zip, nada, nyet. KFkairosfocus_{July 16, 2021
July
07
Jul
16
16
2021
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT}

Jack, that is precisely why they should not use the term nothing. The root of reality is an unbounded past q-foam. That's a pretty strong claim, and it runs into serious issues. It is not at all the same as what has been trumpeted. KF PS: Some food for thought:
In physics, particularly in statistical mechanics, we base many of our calculations on the assumption of metric transitivity, which asserts that a system’s trajectory will eventually [--> given "enough time and search resources"] explore the entirety of its state space – thus everything that is phys-ically possible will eventually happen. It should then be trivially true that one could choose an arbitrary “final state” (e.g., a living organism) and “explain” it by evolving the system backwards in time choosing an appropriate state at some ’start’ time t_0 (fine-tuning the initial state). In the case of a chaotic system the initial state must be specified to arbitrarily high precision. But this account amounts to no more than saying that the world is as it is because it was as it was, and our current narrative therefore scarcely constitutes an explanation in the true scientific sense. We are left in a bit of a conundrum with respect to the problem of specifying the initial conditions necessary to explain our world. A key point is that if we require specialness in our initial state (such that we observe the current state of the world and not any other state) metric transitivity cannot hold true, as it blurs any dependency on initial conditions – that is, it makes little sense for us to single out any particular state as special by calling it the ’initial’ state. If we instead relax the assumption of metric transitivity (which seems more realistic for many real world physical systems – including life), then our phase space will consist of isolated pocket regions and it is not necessarily possible to get to any other physically possible state (see e.g. Fig. 1 for a cellular automata example).
[--> or, there may not be "enough" time and/or resources for the relevant exploration, i.e. we see the 500 - 1,000 bit complexity threshold at work vs 10^57 - 10^80 atoms with fast rxn rates at about 10^-13 to 10^-15 s leading to inability to explore more than a vanishingly small fraction on the gamut of Sol system or observed cosmos . . . the only actually, credibly observed cosmos]
Thus the initial state must be tuned to be in the region of phase space in which we find ourselves [--> notice, fine tuning], and there are regions of the configuration space our physical universe would be excluded from accessing, even if those states may be equally consistent and permissible under the microscopic laws of physics (starting from a different initial state). Thus according to the standard picture, we require special initial conditions to explain the complexity of the world, but also have a sense that we should not be on a particularly special trajectory to get here (or anywhere else) as it would be a sign of fine–tuning of the initial conditions. [ --> notice, the "loading"] Stated most simply, a potential problem with the way we currently formulate physics is that you can’t necessarily get everywhere from anywhere (see Walker [31] for discussion). ["The “Hard Problem” of Life," June 23, 2016, a discussion by Sara Imari Walker and Paul C.W. Davies at Arxiv.]
more on the anthropic principle from Lewis and Barnes https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hitchhikers-guide-authors-puddle-argument-against-fine-tuning-and-a-response/#comment-729507 Note, these are absolutely general phase space issues. And, we are facing Boltzmann brain issues as well, it is overwhelmingly more likely to have a BB delusional world fluctuating in quasi-infinite time etc, than the sort of going concern fine tuned world we inhabit. As credibly embedded creatures, and yes that points to the saw off the branch on which we sit issue.kairosfocus_{July 15, 2021
July
07
Jul
15
15
2021
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT}

No takers for the riddle @2? Lol -QQuerius_{July 15, 2021
July
07
Jul
15
15
2021
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

In one of his videos, Kirk points out that time (or more precisely space-time) came into existence at the big bang. - Without TIME, nothing changes. Everything is "frozen in time" when time is not running. - NOTHING does not have the property of causality. Nothing cannot cause anything at all. Kirk says that when his kids were small, there once was a big crash from upstairs. "What's going on?" he shouted. "Nothing," came the response. So how many adults here believe that "nothing" caused the big crash? I've been watching some of his other videos and they are great! Check them out here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqxKrkPZYueCjHoClH5xkaw -QQuerius_{July 15, 2021
July
07
Jul
15
15
2021
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Hey ba77 Remember according to Chucky D (D is for dipsh@t) A theoretical astrophysicist is completely allowed to discuss the authority of the Bible and then tell everybody who believes in it and religion that they are complete buffoons Nobody may argue with him about the beginning of the universe because he’s a professional scientist who is also professional atheist!!!!!!!! Even though Lawrence Krauss has literally no professional authority in arguing the Bible, religion, or philosophy (which he does all the time) he is completely allowed to do so! while Edward Fesser, because Chuck D’s authority on ALL things said so, is most certainly not allowed to because he’s just a philosopher that happens to be professional in very field Lawrence Krauss criticizes all the time Nothing hypocritical there, nothing at allAaronS1978_{July 15, 2021
July
07
Jul
15
15
2021
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin asks, "Edward Feser critiquing Krauss on physics? Seriously?" This is an interesting question for Chuckdarwin (CD) to ask for several reasons. First, CD critiqued a minor grammatical error as if it rendered Dr. Durston entire argument against Krauss null and void. Yet, when I pointed out that, in all 'seriousness', Lawrence Krauss stated that 2+2=5, (and he even had 2+2=5 emblazoned on his tee-shirt for crying out loud),,,
2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOrlIOm6eGM
,,, when I pointed that fact out, and when I further pointed out that such an elementary, even purposeful, mistake in basic arithmetic on Krauss's part is a major shortcoming for anyone who claims to be an expert in theoretical physics, CD acted as if that 'purposeful mistake' that Krauss made did not matter in the least, and simply ignored it as if nothing was seriously amiss with Krauss's ability to reason coherently about basic arithmetic. I'm sorry CD, it simply does not work that way. Unintended mistakes in grammar are easily forgiven, since everybody makes them. Yet, 'PURPOSEFUL" mistakes in basic arithmetic, especially for a theoretical physicist, are a different matter entirely. Such a 'purposeful' mistake rightly and justifiably raises 'serious' concerns as to Krauss's ability to even practice theoretical physics in a rationally coherent manner in the first place. I mean really, if you can't even get 2+2=4 right, then why should anyone on God's green earth trust any else you have to say as to how the entire universe might have come into being? "Seriously?" If you can believe that 2+2=5, then we have every right to ask, "what other logically incoherent nonsense are you capable of believing to be true?" Another reason that it is interesting that CD asked this question, "Edward Feser critiquing Krauss on physics? Seriously?", is that, besides listing Edward Feser's critique of Krauss, I also listed David Albert's critique of Krauss. And Dr. Albert has a PhD in quantum physics, and teaches at Columbia University. And I also listed George Ellis's critique of Krauss. And Ellis's shoelaces, as far as theoretical physics is concerned, Krauss is not worthy to tie. But instead of acknowledging such heavyweight criticisms of Krauss by leading theoretical Physicists, CD ignores them completely, and acts as if I did not even list their critiques of Krauss, and CD instead 'picks' on the philosopher, i.e. on Edward Feser. (it is interesting to note that both Albert and Ellis, in their critiques of Krauss, also found Krauss to be, among other things, philosophically illiterate) The funny thing about Krauss, (and CD), mocking philosophers is that if anyone ever needed basic lessons in philosophy, especially how philosophy relates to science, it is Atheistic Naturalists, (especially those Atheists who practice theoretical physics). For primary example, since Krauss is apparently so mathematically inept as to, in all 'seriousness', claim that 2+2=5, then Krauss would do very well to humble himself and take a philosophical lesson from Dr. Feser in the philosophy of mathematics, as mathematics has, historically, been applied to the universe.
KEEP IT SIMPLE - by Edward Feser - April 2020 Excerpt: Mathematics appears to describe a realm of entities with quasi-divine attributes. The series of natural numbers is infinite. That one and one equal two and two and two equal four could not have been otherwise. Such mathematical truths never begin being true or cease being true; they hold eternally and immutably. The lines, planes, and figures studied by the geometer have a kind of perfection that the objects of our experience lack. Mathematical objects seem immaterial and known by pure reason rather than through the senses. Given the centrality of mathematics to scientific explanation, it seems in some way to be a cause of the natural world and its order. How can the mathematical realm be so apparently godlike? The traditional answer, originating in Neoplatonic philosophy and Augustinian theology, is that our knowledge of the mathematical realm is precisely knowledge, albeit inchoate, of the divine mind. Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world. For some thinkers in this tradition, mathematics thus provides the starting point for an argument for the existence of God qua supreme intellect. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/04/keep-it-simple
But hey, Krauss, (and CD), don't have to take Dr. Feser's 'philosophical' word for the fact that the applicability of mathematics to the universe reflects a 'divine Mind'. But they can take Wigner's and Einstein's word for it. Eugene Wigner and Albert Einstein are both on record as to regarding it as a 'miracle' that mathematics should even be applicable to the universe in the first place. Eugene Wigner even went so far as to critique Darwinian evolution in the process of calling it a miracle,
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Einstein went one step further than Wigner did and even chastised 'professional atheists' in the process of calling it a miracle.
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952 Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine
One final note, it is interesting to note that both Albert and Ellis, in their critiques of Krauss, chastised Krauss for being philosophically inept.
“But all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right” - David Albert
And please note the nature of Ellis's critique of Krauss in particular,
"Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions. It’s very ironic when he (Krauss) says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy. - George Ellis
George Ellis is, basically, critiquing Krauss for not having a coherent philosophy of mathematics. So again, in all 'seriousness', it would serve Krauss, (and CD), very well to, instead of mocking philosophy, to humble themselves and take a few lessons in philosophy from Dr. Feser, who, in my honest opinion, is an excellent teacher of philosophy. (Of note: Edward Feser is a professor of philosophy at Pasadena City College.) Verse and quotes:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic
bornagain77_{July 15, 2021
July
07
Jul
15
15
2021
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

"Come from nothing." Let's be accurate about what they mean. They mean that the universe came from a quantum foam of potentia. Which obviously is not "nothing" in the strict sense. I think their arguments are unfounded and wishful thinking, but let's be clear that when they say "nothing" they don't mean absolutely nothing. They're deceptive for using the word "nothing" with respect to the issue, and should be taken to the woodshed because of that. (The popularlizers like to sell books.) But don't be naive enough to think that they don't understand that their "nothing" is something. Beyond that, the merits of their quantum foam idea should be mercilessly scrutinized.Jack_{July 15, 2021
July
07
Jul
15
15
2021
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

@aaron @8 …..“don’t like to proof read.” I’m the same, I’m afraid that proofreading today is a lost rat.Belfast_{July 15, 2021
July
07
Jul
15
15
2021
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

Oh I’m terribly sorry Chuckie D I didn’t see that second quotation “My bad” Truly my mistake By the way I’m pretty sure you know where you can shove that fourth grade grammar book of yours… It starts with an A and you sit on it all dayAaronS1978_{July 15, 2021
July
07
Jul
15
15
2021
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT}

re Bornagain77 Edward Feser critiquing Krauss on physics? Seriously? re OldArmy94: Krauss' work stands on its own, he doesn't need me to re-hash it. re AaronS1978: You need to pull out your old 4th grade grammar book. “Why ‘absolutely nothing at all’ caused the origin of the universe is nonesense” is a quotation within a quotation. Those are not apostrophes, they are single quotation marks.chuckdarwin_{July 15, 2021
July
07
Jul
15
15
2021
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply