Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.

[Michael]

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.

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.

 

[46AND2]

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.

He did it because there is a common theme among theists to argue that something can't come from nothing. They use it as an argument for the divine.

By writing what he did, he is arguing that the divine is not necessarily the conclusion...that it's a false assumption that something must have come from nothing, one way or another. We don't even know that nothingness is a legitimate state. That it's a malformed argument from the outset.

I really don't see the problem. It's a common enough discussion between theists and atheists in our culture, and hes attempting to show that maybe there is an alternative explanation than divinity.

 

[46AND2]

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.

 

[Michael]

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?

 

[46AND2]

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

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.

 

[46AND2]

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?

I'll tell you what...as soon as you can demonstrate that the beginning "starts" with an absence of everything, we'll take it to Krauss together.

'Course, you'd have to explain where your god came from, too, since, you know, your "answer" suffers the exact same limitation.

Don't go special pleading on me...

 

[Michael]

People inevitably do. Doesn't make the question any less presumptive.

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.

 

[Michael]

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.

I agree with you that it's essentially an axiomatic prior, but the philosophic definition of "nothing" isn't the axiom that he actually started with. He started with preexisting QM fields. I don't think anyone would have objected to the title "A universe from preexisting QM fields".

 

[46AND2]

As FB just mentioned, the state of "nothing" is an axiomatic prior related to a *philosophical* question.

No he didn't. The axiomatic prior he was talking about was god.

What he actually said [paraphrase] is the state of nothingness is a meaningless concept.

His point was that even religions don't "start" with nothing.

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.

Round and round in circles we go.

 

[Michael]

No he didn't. The axiomatic prior he was talking about was god.

Ooops, you're absolutely right.

Round and round in circles we go.

I'm basically done. There's no point in whipping a dead horse. I just think Krauss took so much public flack because he began with a philosophical term rather than a scientific term (like quantum fields) and misrepresented its philosophical meaning. Like I said, I don't think anyone would have complained had the title of his book read "A universe from quantum fields" but that probably wouldn't have sold as many books.

 

[Davidz777]

A more basic question before considering quantum physics and its Higgs Field etc is whether it began or has always been. It tends to be something even our most intelligent humans struggle with as they often do with subjects that involve the infinite and eternity past. I personally have always seen it clearly.

There either never was stuff or always has been stuff.
Something that was always, does not need a beginning.
Our existence shows there is stuff.
Therefore there has always been stuff.

Note that doesn't mean stuff exists everywhere, a different question. In other words there may be space without anything including a vacuum etc, whatever. Within our own world and maybe this whole universe, I do lean towards a field that exists everywhere as fields tend to provide correct paths between matter even before they have speed of light time to say explore all the possible paths.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

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?)

 

[SelfSim]

What he actually said [paraphrase] is the state of nothingness is a meaningless concept.

.. (which is a position which is not objectively evidenced ... and one which completely ignores the evidence to the contrary).

His point was that even religions don't "start" with nothing.

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?

Round and round in circles we go.

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]

.. (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 never said I agreed with what FB said...just corrected Michael's misunderstanding of what FB said in his response to me.

I don't have a problem with people philosophically questioning why is there something rather than nothing. We've been doing it for thousands of years.

What I take issue with is when Christians use it as if they have the only possible answer...goddidit...and assume that all atheists must believe that something came from absolute nothing, since we reject the ubiquitous magical answer.

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.

The difference is he asserts that state of absolute nothingness. I do not, and therefore reject "how does something come from nothing" as a legitimate question, because at this point nothingness need not be assumed in the first place.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

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.

 

[Michael]

It would have been better, but even the term "empty space" invites unnecessary ambiguity because the term "empty" is typically associated with an absence of everything. He was ultimately trying to convey the the concept of quantum fields, so the term "quantum fields" would have been the least ambiguous term to use, or even "quantum vacuum".

 

[Michael]

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.

Actually, I'm well aware of the fact that suggesting that God created the universe also kicks the can down the street which is why I would never use that argument to begin with. Frankly however the concept that "God did it" seems far more plausible to me personally than "quantum fields, inflation, space expansion, dark energy, dark matter and whatever else astronomers dream up next to fix their current problem did it". Talk about kicking the can down the street. That can has more dents in it than a car in a demolition derby.