- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,675
- 11,529
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I'll address it any time I feel like it is semantically 'due.'
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.
How most people think of "nothing" isn't in evidence, and doesn't need to be addressed until such a time comes that there is evidence that "nothing" ever actually was that way.
In regards to the use of "nothing" by Krauss; I think the issue is that he is writing POP (Popular) science books. These are mainstream books that the average guy might pickup and read. It seems he is knowingly misleading his audience by using the word nothing in the manner that he does. I also think he uses nothing in this manner, because he realizes if he presupposes some type of matter that he then has to explain where the nothing came from. It is nothing more that wizardry to confuse his audience in my opinion.
To my knowledge, they do . They arise from virtual particles.Seems like we have a Krauss apprentice in the house. @Nicholas Deka how do quantum fluctuations occur without a transfer from pre-existing energy?
He was in his book, and I agree most people should be.Whatever. I understand the theory; I've read Krauss, I've read Frank Close. My point still stands. It wasn't "nothing" as most people think of it, and we need to be clear on this.
You realize that Krauss wrote a book about all this stuff, it doesn't mean he discovered all this stuff right? This isn't a Krauss thing, it's a phenomena of quantum mechanics that scientists observe in the lab. As far as I can tell it traces back to a couple guys, John Wheeler and Bruce DeWitt (in the 1960s) and then a guy named Dongshan He and a group of physicists in China made a mathematical proof based on it. So don't dismiss all this as the quack theory of one guy.Seems like we have a Krauss apprentice in the house. @Nicholas Deka how do quantum fluctuations occur without a transfer from pre-existing energy?
Do I remember correctly that it is that phenomena which is illustrated in this graph:You realize that Krauss wrote a book about all this stuff, it doesn't mean he discovered all this stuff right? This isn't a Krauss thing, it's a phenomena of quantum mechanics that scientists observe in the lab. As far as I can tell it traces back to a couple guys, John Wheeler and Bruce DeWitt (in the 1960s) and then a guy named Dongshan He and a group of physicists in China made a mathematical proof based on it. So don't dismiss all this as the quack theory of one guy.
To your question, though, it would take a lot of math to prove it works, which is certainly above my pay grade, but I can explain what the concept is. You'd need a Phd in physics to try to refute or prove it.
So you've got the uncertainty principle which concerns the amount of change of energy over time. If the amount of energy is small, and it exists for a very short amount of time (something like 10^-40 of a second I think) then it can pop into existence for that long and stop existing without violating conservation of energy. What is happening is that a particle and an antiparticle show up at the same time and then almost immediately collide destroying each other. Because it is for such a short amount of time, conservation of energy isn't violated, but the effects of it showing up are still measurable. Sort of like how if you open a dam, the water rushes out, but the only thing that really changed was the dam door, you didn't make a change to the water.
This is verified science, by the way. Empty space has fluctuations of energy all the time and it is measured in the lab.
The burden of proof is established only in a debate situation and is determined by the debate authority
A good way to determine who has the burden of proof is based on the question
For instance, if the question "Does God Exist?" is the debate topic and the atheist replies "No", then they would have to substantiate that claim. Same with the theist who answers "yes", so there would be an equal burden of proof.
In regards to the use of "nothing" by Krauss; I think the issue is that he is writing POP (Popular) science books. These are mainstream books that the average guy might pickup and read.
It seems he is knowingly misleading his audience by using the word nothing in the manner that he does
I also think he uses nothing in this manner, because he realizes if he presupposes some type of matter that he then has to explain where the nothing came from. It is nothing more that wizardry to confuse his audience in my opinion.
Whatever. I understand the theory; I've read Krauss, I've read Frank Close. My point still stands. It wasn't "nothing" as most people think of it, and we need to be clear on this.
Yep, that's the stuff. I believe it's energy moving around as a result of particles spontaneously beginning to exist, and then ceasing to exist, constantly.Do I remember correctly that it is that phenomena which is illustrated in this graph:
That's "empty space", right there.
That's what it looks like in a "quantum vacuum".
For all intents and purposes, there is "nothing" in there.
Look at all the stuff happening though
Think about this, "absolutely not anything" has no dimensions. It has no location. How could something that isn't anywhere possibly exist?Yes, there is that "philosophical nothing". As in "absolutely not anything".
But what is that? Is that even a state that can actually exist in reality? And what does it even mean for "absolutely not anything" to "exist"?
In his book, "The Moral Landscape", Sam Harris accepts objective moral truths (e.g. that something is morally wrong whether you agree with it or not).
Although he accepts objective moral values and duties, he attempts to define morals based on a type of evolutionary psychology and what we should or should not deny in regard to our biological development.
Sam Harris essentially admits this toward the end of his book as "he makes the telling admission that if people such as rapists, liars, and thieves could be just as happy as good people, then his moral landscape would no longer be a moral landscape; rather it would just be a continuum of well-being, whose peaks are occupied by good and evil people alike" - taken from reasonable faith.
His moral landscape is not moral because it is essentially a "pleasurable life" vs a "life of suffering" and has nothing to do with moral good and evil.
Nothing, the way he uses it, means no matter, no energy, no space, no time. There's no reason to use the word "nothing" the way that philosophers want to use the word if there's no reason to believe that kind of "nothing" existed ever or anywhere.
Why would the "new atheist" have to defend a claim, that he is not making
Atheists are statistically more likely to have more education than theists throughout the world. Your ad hominem fails.Although I use the term "New Atheist," to represent a fundamentalism that focuses on rhetoric rather than logic and rationality, and needlessly I might add, the Internet infidel is a cut below the new atheist. Highschool degrees are rare with this community.
So you didn't understand the response?
Claims 1- no god(s) exist
Is a philosophical claim described historically as atheism.
He doesn't really and it seems like you haven't read it. Because he explains this in one of the first chapters.
It's more like pseudo-objective.
He starts with 2 simple premises/definitions, which are strictly speaking subjective:
- good are all those decisions and actions which maximise well-being of concious creatures.
- bad are all those decisions and actions wich maximise the suffering of concious creatures.
He then goes on to say that if you disagree with these premises, then one can only wonder what you mean by morality and ethics, if not a system of rules to maximise well-being for all.
One can wonder indeed, how one can have a conversation with someone concerning morality, if that person does not agree that well-being is preferable to suffering.
Now, once we are in agreement about those premises... what follows can be objectively evaluated. We can take each decision and action on a case by case basis and evaluate wheter it causes more suffering or if it promotes well-being.
Seems perfectly sensible.
No, that's not true either.
Our moral inclinations are the result of our evolutionary history - that is true.
The only reason why we have such a thing as morality, is because we developed as a social species that operates in groups. The success of a social group dependend on co-operation is directly dependend on the behaviour of individuals of said group.
There is a reason why all cultures around the world have come up with rules for what is and isn't acceptable behaviour. Many of those core rules are actually pretty much the same everywhere.
This fits Harris' moral theory. If we can agree that well-being is more preferable to suffering, then we will come up with similar ideas on how to organise a society.
Are you sure that he wasn't talking about the victims of rapists, liars and thieves?
I'ld agree though. If raping, lying and stealing didn't have a negative impact on well-being or the success of a society, then it wouldn't be considered immoral.
But it does have a negative impact, so to dwell on that seems like an exercise in futility.
What is "good", if not those things that maximise well-being?
What is "evil", if not those things that maximise suffering?
How do YOU define "good" and "evil"? And how do YOU decide wheter action or decision X, is "good" or "evil"?
You realize that Krauss wrote a book about all this stuff, it doesn't mean he discovered all this stuff right? This isn't a Krauss thing, it's a phenomena of quantum mechanics that scientists observe in the lab. As far as I can tell it traces back to a couple guys, John Wheeler and Bruce DeWitt (in the 1960s) and then a guy named Dongshan He and a group of physicists in China made a mathematical proof based on it. So don't dismiss all this as the quack theory of one guy.
To your question, though, it would take a lot of math to prove it works, which is certainly above my pay grade, but I can explain what the concept is. You'd need a Phd in physics to try to refute or prove it.
So you've got the uncertainty principle which concerns the amount of change of energy over time. If the amount of energy is small, and it exists for a very short amount of time (something like 10^-40 of a second I think) then it can pop into existence for that long and stop existing without violating conservation of energy. What is happening is that a particle and an antiparticle show up at the same time and then almost immediately collide destroying each other. Because it is for such a short amount of time, conservation of energy isn't violated, but the effects of it showing up are still measurable. Sort of like how if you open a dam, the water rushes out, but the only thing that really changed was the dam door, you didn't make a change to the water.
This is verified science, by the way. Empty space has fluctuations of energy all the time and it is measured in the lab.
Do I remember correctly that it is that phenomena which is illustrated in this graph:
That's "empty space", right there.
That's what it looks like in a "quantum vacuum".
For all intents and purposes, there is "nothing" in there.
Look at all the stuff happening though
Well, it has spacetime in it, but if you think there are particles there you're wrong. Where space is empty, virtual particles will appear and disappear. That doesn't mean there's no such thing as empty space.I think popular science has pulled the wool over the eyes of the sheep as 'empty space' isn't actually empty.
It would be funnier if you actually read what I wrote. I explicitly said I can't prove it to you, so I'm not going to try. And that graph isn't a representation of a universe popping into existence, it's an example of a true vacuum still containing activity as virtual particles pop into existence. I didn't talk about universes popping into existence, just particles. That's all you asked about. TM didn't talk about universes popping into existence either.Side comment.... it is kind of funny you posted that graph and said "that is empty space right there" as proof that the universe can pop into existence from nothing. You realize it is impossible to observe events that are external to our universe? That was just funny to me...
So you didn't understand the response?
Claims 1- no god(s) exist
Is a philosophical claim described historically as atheism.
Claim 3 - I know that no one can know whether god(s) exist is a knowledge claims.
What happens when you equivocate on the term, "Atheism?"
You conflate two knowledge claims and one claim that is not knowledge into one claim.
Only the agnostic (weak) has no burden of defending the claim from a philosophical standpoint.
When you conflate all three terms with the intent to avoid the burden of defending you claim you do a couple things. Firstly, refuse to justify your beliefs.
So the claims "god(s)don't exist," and "No one can know whether god(s) exist," no longer being justified, are by definition Not knowledge claims.
Secondly, it is intellectually lazy as there are dozens of good reasons to hold to atheism or strong agnosticism so only the lazy person is unable to marshal any arguments in support of their claim.
Although I use the term "New Atheist," to represent a fundamentalism that focuses on rhetoric rather than logic and rationality
, and needlessly I might add, the Internet infidel is a cut below the new atheist. Highschool degrees are rare with this community.
And attempts to introduce the slightest modicum of philosophy 101 are met with mocking and derision or a flurry of pseudo (fake) intellectua-sounding arguments.
No tricks. Just support your claims to knowledge.
Only the weak agnostic can get a pass and your clearly not one of those.
To define good and evil based on pleasure and suffering is moral equivocation because we can imagine many scenarios where pleasure and suffering would amoral or where suffering would be good and pleasure would be evil.
For instance, a person falling and scraping their knee. There would be no moral significance to that suffering.
Also, a person who decides not to have children because it would be painful or a person who decides not to have children because it would impinge on their free-time for themselves.
You are addressing a separate issue which is the foundation of moral duties & values. A lot of the things you list are morally good, but they have no objective foundation from the view of an atheist (as you admit). It doesn't sound like you have a problem with that as you admit that the spectrum of Harris' moral landscape is subjective.
This is another issue as on one hand you criticize people by saying "how one can have a conversation with someone concerning morality, if that person does not agree that well-being is preferable to suffering."
and on the other hand you agree that Sam Harris' moral landscape is subjective.
Seems like a conundrum to me as you are affirming that any type of pleasure can occupy the peak of Sam Harris' moral landscape.
Do you think that genocide is okay if it promotes the well being of future generations?
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?