Something out of nothing

[volchok]

samharris.org/blog/item/ever … d-nothing/

Sam Harris interviews the renown physic Lawrence Krauss who just published " A universe out of nothing" : why there is something rather then nothing.

I’ve been waiting for this book for months and I plan on buying it.
Anyway, I thought the interview was fascinating and might clear up some confusion.

[James_S_Saint]

@volchok

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/everything-and-nothing/

Sam Harris interviews the renown physic Lawrence Krauss who just published " A universe out of nothing" : why there is something rather then nothing.

I’ve been waiting for this book for months and I plan on buying it.
Anyway, I thought the interview was fascinating and might clear up some confusion.

No offense, but;

Quantum mechanics, which governs the behavior of our Universe on very small scales, is full of such craziness, which defies common sense in the traditional sense. So small squares are sometimes round…

Bullshit.

[Stoic_Guardian]

Wait, then it is “Something”.

False advertising!

[Dan1 (Dan~)]

I believe that in some realms and dimensions, existence and non-existence can interchange. Things can be nullified or built up out of the so-called “nothing”. The dual forces of infinity and nothingness are very interconnected, and one requires the other. You need absolute empty space before you can place something there and have it be free from influence. This means the most pure reality is based in null.

[victorel21]

@Stoic Guardian

Wait, then it is “Something”.

False advertising!

Agreed!!

[without-music]

Empirical discoveries continue to tell us that the Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not, and ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy. (Indeed, religion and philosophy have added nothing to our understanding of these ideas in millennia.)

Ridiculous. Science needs once again to learn its place.

[Faust]

But there is something even more profound about the nature of “scientific truth” that has arisen in physics, which I don’t think is generally appreciated. It is the simple fact that we realize that none of our theories are “true” in the sense that they adequately describe nature on all scales.

Oh, what do you know. Just what I have been saying on another thread.

[James_S_Saint]

@without-music

Empirical discoveries continue to tell us that the Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not, and ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy. (Indeed, religion and philosophy have added nothing to our understanding of these ideas in millennia.)

Ridiculous. Science needs once again to learn its place.

How about that…
…miracles really do exist.

W/m actually can say something right.

[volchok]

@Stoic Guardian

Wait, then it is “Something”.

False advertising!

It’s not false adverstising. Our notions of something and nothing simply seem to be wrong which is understandable considering our intellectual limitations.
Would you rather the book be called “nothing is not nothing” ?

[volchok]

@without-music

Ridiculous. Science needs once again to learn its place.

Explain.

[volchok]

@James S Saint

Bullshit.

Explain.

[Stoic_Guardian]

@volchok

@Stoic Guardian

Wait, then it is “Something”.

False advertising!

It’s not false adverstising. Our notions of something and nothing simply seem to be wrong which is understandable considering our intellectual limitations.
Would you rather the book be called “nothing is not nothing” ?

…Yeah.

Or better yet “It’s Something!”

[without-music]

@volchok

@without-music

Ridiculous. Science needs once again to learn its place.

Explain.

“Empirical discoveries” work as such in and through a philosophical framework. Without such a framework, without theory, science is directionless and impotent, unable to sort out the relevant from the not, to develop a model against which to measure its findings, to make a claim to anything at all. Remember, the theory of falsification is itself philosophical. Occam’s Razor is itself philosophical. And so on. The claim that we can understand the world perfectly well, scientifically, and that philosophy has no place in empirical observation is a blindness to one’s roots, one’s foundation. Science has grown arrogant. Do you object?

[James_S_Saint]

@without-music

“Empirical discoveries” work as such in and through a philosophical framework. Without such a framework, without theory, science is directionless and impotent, unable to sort out the relevant from the not, to develop a model against which to measure its findings, to make a claim to anything at all. Remember, the theory of falsification is itself philosophical. Occam’s Razor is itself philosophical. And so on. The claim that we can understand the world perfectly well, scientifically, and that philosophy has no place in empirical observation is a blindness to one’s roots, one’s foundation. Science has grown arrogant.

Right on the money.

And btw, Vol, “nothingness” happens to be physically impossible in the first place. Nothing comes from nothing because there was never a nothing from which to come.

As far as the Quantum Magi’s magic mathematics illusions and subsequent delusions, what can I say. Invent enough mysterious inexplicable fantasy notions and you can pretty much claim to wholly understand anything without having to actually understand anything at all. They are merely playing mind games, ie. “Bullshit”.

[Stoic_Guardian]

@without-music

Science has grown arrogant. Do you object?

I’ve understood that ever sense I started my philosophical studies.

[volchok]

@without-music

“Empirical discoveries” work as such in and through a philosophical framework. Without such a framework, without theory, science is directionless and impotent, unable to sort out the relevant from the not, to develop a model against which to measure its findings, to make a claim to anything at all. Remember, the theory of falsification is itself philosophical. Occam’s Razor is itself philosophical. And so on. The claim that we can understand the world perfectly well, scientifically, and that philosophy has no place in empirical observation is a blindness to one’s roots, one’s foundation. Science has grown arrogant. Do you object?

I object to the separation of science and philosophy. I hold the naturalistic view which posits that philosophy and science belong to the same continuum and are essentially the same thing. So, what you call philosophical framework can be seen as something else. But if you insist on separating philosophy from science, I’d say philosophy’s arrogance is unparalleled.

[volchok]

@James S Saint

And btw, Vol, “nothingness” happens to be physically impossible in the first place. Nothing comes from nothing because there was never a nothing from which to come.

What else is new?
That is what I said a few posts ago.

@James S Saint

As far as the Quantum Magi’s magic mathematics illusions and subsequent delusions, what can I say. Invent enough mysterious inexplicable fantasy notions and you can pretty much claim to wholly understand anything without having to actually understand anything at all. They are merely playing mind games, ie. “Bullshit”.

So, let me get this straight, you propose that lawrence krauss is bullshiting and that you know better, is that it?

[without-music]

@volchok

@without-music

“Empirical discoveries” work as such in and through a philosophical framework. Without such a framework, without theory, science is directionless and impotent, unable to sort out the relevant from the not, to develop a model against which to measure its findings, to make a claim to anything at all. Remember, the theory of falsification is itself philosophical. Occam’s Razor is itself philosophical. And so on. The claim that we can understand the world perfectly well, scientifically, and that philosophy has no place in empirical observation is a blindness to one’s roots, one’s foundation. Science has grown arrogant. Do you object?

I object to the separation of science and philosophy. I hold the naturalistic view which posits that philosophy and science belong to the same continuum and are essentially the same thing. So, what you call philosophical framework can be seen as something else. But if you insist on separating philosophy from science, I’d say philosophy’s arrogance is unparalleled.

Re-read my post. My view is that philosophy and science belong to the same continuum. It’s just that philosophy is the foundation out of which grows science – along with much else. The boundary between the two is of course ambiguous, which is why a scientist claiming that his science has no need for philosophy is arrogant and blind. According to this “naturalistic view” of yours, please elucidate for me the nature of the continuum such that science can work free of philosophy. Or, in your terms: Explain.

[volchok]

@without-music

Re-read my post. My view is that philosophy and science belong to the same continuum. It’s just that philosophy is the foundation out of which grows science – along with much else. ?

Yes, I got that on the first reading.

@without-music

The boundary between the two is of course ambiguous, which is why a scientist claiming that his science has no need for philosophy is arrogant and blind.

It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that when Krauss mentions philosophy, he means everything that encompasses philosophy after that so called “initial foundation”. He seems to be talking of all the unfounded speculation that goes on. That’s why he talks of theology as well. Theology is nothing but bad philosophy but there is also bad philosophy which isn’t theological in its nature.

@without-music

. Or, in your terms: Explain.

Well,someone’s angry.
Without reason though.

[ZenKitty]

You have to love this quote:

Quantum mechanics, which governs the behavior of our Universe on very small scales, is full of such craziness, which defies common sense in the traditional sense. So small squares are sometimes round… namely systems can be in many different states at the same time, including ones which are mutually exclusive! Crazy, I know, but true… That is the heart of why the quantum universe is so weird.

Basically, the universe is contradictory. And it should be known, that from a contradiction anything follows! Principle of Explosion! In other words, the universe is completely irrational. Thank you Leonard Krauss, you’ve just proved a God and also disproved a God. You’ve just shown that laws of nature exist and have just shown that the laws of nature don’t exist. You’ve just shown that Pink Unicorns exist and have shown that Pink Unicorns don’t exist. Wait, the universe was created by a God and the Universe wasn’t created by a God. The universe came from something and didn’t come from something. Do I need to go on?