I assume the sales appeal was the whole point of mixing philosophy with science, but he did so in an inconsistent manner IMO. I think that's also why he's taken so much criticism for it from both sides.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I think it made for a book that was more likely to sell and be read than, "A Universe from Only Quantum Fields", which, if you want to introduce the interested public to modern cosmology, is a sensible idea. YMMV.
But there's a problem. His personal definition of "nothing" isn't the absence of everything, so it's not actually "nothing". Call it whatever you like but it's not actually the absence of everything, including the absence of QM fields and physics, so it's not actually "nothing".
I get the distinct impression that he used the term "nothing" more as an advertising gimmick than anything else to help him sell his book. If he'd used the scientific term "vacuum", he would have been fine scientifically speaking, but by using the term "nothing", he delved into the realm of philosophy and then he changed the rules and the definitions to suit himself.
He can't really have it both ways. Either he should have stuck to science and used the proper scientific term "vacuum", or delved into it the philosophy and used the term "nothing" properly. Instead he mixed and matched science and philosophy and changed the term "nothing" to suit himself. In doing so, he seems to have irritated both philosophers and scientists alike.
I assume the sales appeal was the whole point of mixing philosophy with science, but he did so in an inconsistent manner IMO. I think that's also why he's taken so much criticism for it from both sides.
Put it this way, many of the people who object to his book do so because they think he is not really answering the question, how can something come from nothing?
But he is. He is saying it is a poorly constructed question to begin with, because it assumes there has ever been a state of nothingness.
One could argue that Krauss simply *evaded* the core philosophical question by refusing to actually begin with an absence of everything (nothing), and he simply kicked the can down the street. Where did the QM fields come from originally? See what I mean?
The absence of everything is not a meaningful physical state, you can't 'begin' with it because there's no 'it'; even religions postulate an axiomatic prior.One could argue that Krauss simply *evaded* the core philosophical question by refusing to actually begin with an absence of everything (nothing), and he simply kicked the can down the street.
One could argue that Krauss simply *evaded* the core philosophical question by refusing to actually begin with an absence of everything (nothing), and he simply kicked the can down the street. Where did the QM fields come from originally? See what I mean?
People inevitably do. Doesn't make the question any less presumptive.
The absence of everything is not a meaningful physical state, you can't 'begin' with it because there's no 'it'; even religions postulate an axiomatic prior.
As FB just mentioned, the state of "nothing" is an axiomatic prior related to a *philosophical* question.
I don't really mind if Krauss wants to start with a few of his own "initial assumptions" too, but he still didn't actually start with "nothing", so claiming that he got something from nothing is still a misnomer. He simply got something from something else.
Mind you that the conservation of energy laws allow energy to change forms, but not to be created or destroyed, so his chosen set of initial conditions is consistent with those laws, but he simply did not start with the absence of everything, so he didn't start with "nothing", nor did he get something from nothing. I think that's why he took so much flack from philosophers and scientists alike.
No he didn't. The axiomatic prior he was talking about was god.
Round and round in circles we go.
And there you go again .. completely ignoring and dodging the fact that 'nothing' is still a concept which takes a human mind to conceive. Yet again, I'll point out the whole 'something from nothing'.. is a hypothetical, (which takes a human mind to conceive), for goodness sake! If you don't agree, then please tell us where else you think hypotheticals do come from? (Even when you do that you'll be demonstrating my point by using your own mind!)The absence of everything is not a meaningful physical state, you can't 'begin' with it because there's no 'it'; even religions postulate an axiomatic prior.
.. (which is a position which is not objectively evidenced ... and one which completely ignores the evidence to the contrary).What he actually said [paraphrase] is the state of nothingness is a meaningless concept.
I agree that was intended.46AND2 said:His point was that even religions don't "start" with nothing.
It doesn't go 'round and round' if people would start to acknowledge the unrecognised, yet implied mind, amidst the very same discussion about these concepts (the passive one inventing hypotheticals like quantum fields) .. Then it becomes glaringly obvious what it is that is coming up with concepts and their meanings including what 'nothing' means (.. testable in science .. or otherwise)!46AND2 said:Round and round in circles we go.
.. (which is a position which is not objectively evidenced ... and one which completely ignores the evidence to the contrary).
I agree that was intended.
As is the current point under discussion however, what was put forward also depends on what the person using the term of 'nothing' holds as its meaning. That meaning also requires a description of the context in which it is used in order for others to understand it.
I agree that there are objective tests and evidence supporting that religions take minds to conceive. Funny thing is that it also takes minds to conceive the other meaning of 'nothing' (the absence of everything), also. Funny thing that ... but why is the latter being completely ignored?
It doesn't go 'round and round' if people would start to acknowledge the unrecognised, yet implied mind, amidst the very same discussion about these concepts (the passive one inventing hypotheticals like quantum fields) .. Then it becomes glaringly obvious what it is that is coming up with concepts and their meanings including what 'nothing' means (.. testable in science .. or otherwise)!
I quite agree that these are all concepts of the human mind. I'm just arguing that within the semantic framework of the usage of certain terms some uses are incoherent or meaningless.And there you go again .. completely ignoring and dodging the fact that 'nothing' is still a concept which takes a human mind to conceive. Yet again, I'll point out the whole 'something from nothing'.. is a hypothetical, (which takes a human mind to conceive), for goodness sake! If you don't agree, then please tell us where else you think hypotheticals do come from? (Even when you do that you'll be demonstrating my point by using your own mind!)
The meaning of 'nothing' also takes a human mind to come up with! If you don't agree then please state the test which demonstrates that meanings are somehow floating around independently from us, waiting for us to somehow miraculously 'discover'! I'm quite comfortable with 'nothing' having the meaning of quantum field/fluctuations (etc) because there is clear evidence that these concepts were developed by human, scientifically thinking minds over the last century or so. Even the 'absence of everything' meaning is still a model conceived by minds which you (& many others) continually ignore! Why is that when its completely obvious? In the scenario where there are no human minds, no atoms, no nothing ... what is continually overlooked is that it still takes a mind to envisage such a state. It therefore has meaning, otherwise I couldn't have possibly understood the notion put forward (by Michael?)
I quite agree that these are all concepts of the human mind. I'm just arguing that within the semantic framework of the usage of certain terms some uses are incoherent or meaningless.
In particular, the literal and absolute meaning of 'nothing' is 'no thing'; things are referred to by the third person pronoun 'it', so that meaning of 'nothing' implies no 'it'. Simples.
Meh. Would it have been better if he'd called it "A Universe Out of Empty Space"? Physicists generally call space that only contains quantum fields 'empty' despite it not being literally empty.The issue is one of conceptual consistency and the fact there are multiple 'minds' involved. If we're trying to convey meaning to each other then our use of terms has to be consistent. Most people equate the term nothing with the absence of everything. Krauss however redefined the term "nothing" to *include QM fields*. It's not really possible to have clear communication between multiple minds if the terms aren't used consistently in each mind. Had Krauss simply used the term "quantum fields" rather than "nothing", other 'minds' would not have been confused, or objected to his use of terms. Since he used the term "nothing" to try to convey the concept of "quantum fields", he essentially confused the hell out of other minds and then endured the wrath/criticism of other minds.
And when Michael claims that Krauss's book simply pushes the question back a step, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it's the same exact thing that his "answer" does.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?