Collins writes, "Second, in the late 1990’s it was discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which is widely taken as strong evidence for a small positive value of ρd. A positive value of ρd, however, is incompatible with any principle or symmetry requiring that it be zero."
Clearly Robins has steered away from Krauss's latest book otherwise this bit would have been put right.
"Krauss' latest book is nonsense. David Albert shredded it in the New York Times."
On the contrary. I have read Krauss's 'AUFN' and have read Albert's article.
Krauss's book outlines the beginning of the slowly emerging but solidly substantive narrative how the universe came from nothing. We may never really know but the idea of a Christian god is simply not an explanation worth even contemplating.
Albert points to a number of apparent shortcomings in Krauss's perspective, and indeed, rightly, I felt somewhat a little disappointed in Krauss's explanation of 'nothing'. That being said, I think Albert's philosophical concept of 'nothing' is at cross purposes with the scientific concept of 'nothing'. Generally, philosophers write down, nothing +nothing = nothing [0+0=0]. The scientific understanding of 'nothing' is akin to, something+[-]something=0, that is 1+[-1]= 0 This formula is much more in keeping with the physicality of what is meant by 'nothing' in quantum mechanics [illustrating both quantum potential and quantum vacuum].
This would not sit well with Albert's spiritual or theological perspective. As a commenter over at Coyne's WEIT noted, Albert is a " .. big TEMPLETON financial beneficiary (the Templeton folks not pleased with godless understandings of the universe’s ultimate origins, which Krauss’ perspectives tend to underpin (Krauss, too, being a Ph.D. physicist)." See HERE and HERE.
No personal religious bias in Albert's thinking then?
And while I was a little disappointed with a lack of clarity in Krauss's explanation, I never expected Krauss to come up with the definitive or ultimate answer, anyway. We're still a long way from that, no doubt, but he is mapping the way helped by some very substantial and elegant evidence behind him.
Isn't Albert an atheist? And as a grad student in a department that receives a lot of Templeton funding, I can say that the consensus seems to be that they really are pretty good about not trying to unduly influence the people who get their money.
Anyway, Krauss can use "nothing" however he wants, but the point is that he seems to think he's answered the philosophical/theological question when he really he hasn't even said much of anything that's relevant to it.
""Another ad hominem response. He has religious beliefs, or is supported by people who do so his arguments can't be trusted. This without refuting them."
No not at all. Simply adding context. When one introduces religion or spiritualism into the equation, it is important to understand context which might provide for confirmation bias and a particular leaning. I say this because philosophical arguments are ostensibly equivocally interpretive in nature with as many philosophers on one end of the scales counterbalancing those of a different interpretation on the other.
But in the final analysis, it won't be philosophy that will discover the answers, it will be science. That is why science, with its dramatic success rate and prodigiously developing knowledge base, separated from philosophy to become an " .. independent force with the power and authority to challenge the old and construct the new, in the realms both of theory and practice, on the basis of its own principles." Outlined HERE.
The attempt at an holistic link with religion, spirituality through philosophy will always pretty much be a subsequent event. That is not so say these are unimportant in understanding and appreciating the human condition as they relate to science. To be sure, it is important to discuss these issues.
Indeed it was Krauss that sums up, "One is always free, as some people do, to interpret the laws of nature as signs of purpose, as for example Pope Pius did when Belgian physicist-priest George Lemaitre demonstrated that Einstein’s general theory of relativity implied the universe had a beginning. The Pope interpreted this as scientific proof of Genesis, but Lemaitre asked him to stop saying this. The big bang, as it has become known, can be interpreted in terms of a divine beginning, but it can equally be interpreted as removing God from the equation entirely. The conclusion is in the mind of the beholder, and it is outside of the realm of scientific theory and prediction."
"Anyway, Krauss can use "nothing" however he wants, but the point is that he seems to think he's answered the philosophical/theological question when he really he hasn't even said much of anything that's relevant to it."
Exactly right and exactly true. The theological/philosophical question are completely irrelevant to science. One could even go to say theology is anathema to science.
Of the -isms; theism or scientism? Scientism or theism? No contest really.
I'm on the left, Bilbo, the slightly tubby one. The other is my 'Altar ego' [pardon the pun], the famous top don of the Freedom From Religion Foundation [FFRF], Dan Barker. See HERE.
papa posted: ''This would not sit well with Albert's spiritual or theological perspective.''
Albert is an atheist.
''When one introduces religion or spiritualism into the equation, it is important to understand context which might provide for confirmation bias and a particular leaning.''
And of course, atheists are completely immune to bias, dishonesty and stupidity being creature of pure reason eh Paps?
''The theological/philosophical question are completely irrelevant to science.''
Well as long as you agree science can't answer philosophical questions then there's not much to argue with here. The next time someone says 'science disproves theism' or 'why is there something rather than nothing? Science tells us that nothing is unstable! Philosophy: 0 Science: 1' I hope you will point out their confusion.
Tomorrow being Ash Wednesday, I will be commencing my third annual "Internet Fast" for the duration of Lent. See you all on the other side after Easter!
No great intellectual pursuits this year in lieu of websurfing. I intend to re-read the entire (unfortunately unfinished) Childe Cycle by Gordon R. Dickson. Read the first 6 volumes as they came out from the 1960's through 1984. Never read the 4 volumes that came out after that, however.
"Wow Paps you have to date learned nothing. You have no knowledge on how to be a rational Atheist. You simply believe or disbelieve as you see fit based on your feelings no doubt not your intellect."
This is just an example of what Victor called the "we are winning" argument.
What does that have to do with rational arguments and rational investigations of truth?
A majority of uneducated people at one time believed the world was flat.
Education standards in America are crap these days so I could then turn this around and argue there is correlation between growing non-belief with growing ignorance and stupidity.*
http://www.cybercollege.com/plume8.htm
*Mind you I am not making such an argument because it would be as facile as anything Paps would produce.
Gee Paps would it kill ya.....Oh I guess it would.
It's impossible to believe you where ever a teacher.
Ben "This is just an example of what Victor called the "we are winning" argument. What does that have to do with rational arguments and rational investigations of truth?"
Ben "What part of "Mind you I am not making such an argument because it would be as facile as anything Paps would produce." do ye not understand?"
I'm pleased that you aren't because any such argument about the reality of the existence of a god would indeed be facile, regardless of what I may produce. God is being hoisted by his own philosophical petard.
>Well, lots. Truth ultimately wins out in the end.
Really? Well it's nice to see you developing a form of belief in Divine Providence.
After all in a hypothetical godless reality there is no reason to believe Truth will win out or not in the end since there are no ultimate goals or final causality in a godless reality or even truth for that matter in some views.
24 comments:
Collins writes, "Second, in the late 1990’s it was
discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which is widely taken as strong
evidence for a small positive value of ρd. A positive value of ρd, however, is incompatible with
any principle or symmetry requiring that it be zero."
Clearly Robins has steered away from Krauss's latest book otherwise this bit would have been put right.
Krauss' latest book is nonsense.
David Albert shredded it in the New York Times.
"Krauss' latest book is nonsense.
David Albert shredded it in the New York Times."
On the contrary. I have read Krauss's 'AUFN' and have read Albert's article.
Krauss's book outlines the beginning of the slowly emerging but solidly substantive narrative how the universe came from nothing. We may never really know but the idea of a Christian god is simply not an explanation worth even contemplating.
Albert points to a number of apparent shortcomings in Krauss's perspective, and indeed, rightly, I felt somewhat a little disappointed in Krauss's explanation of 'nothing'. That being said, I think Albert's philosophical concept of 'nothing' is at cross purposes with the scientific concept of 'nothing'. Generally, philosophers write down, nothing +nothing = nothing [0+0=0]. The scientific understanding of 'nothing' is akin to, something+[-]something=0, that is 1+[-1]= 0 This formula is much more in keeping with the physicality of what is meant by 'nothing' in quantum mechanics [illustrating both quantum potential and quantum vacuum].
This would not sit well with Albert's spiritual or theological perspective. As a commenter over at Coyne's WEIT noted, Albert is a " .. big TEMPLETON financial beneficiary (the Templeton folks not pleased with godless understandings of the universe’s ultimate origins, which Krauss’ perspectives tend to underpin (Krauss, too, being a Ph.D. physicist)." See HERE and HERE.
No personal religious bias in Albert's thinking then?
And while I was a little disappointed with a lack of clarity in Krauss's explanation, I never expected Krauss to come up with the definitive or ultimate answer, anyway. We're still a long way from that, no doubt, but he is mapping the way helped by some very substantial and elegant evidence behind him.
Another ad hominem response. He has religious beliefs, or is supported by people who do so his arguments can't be trusted. This without refuting them.
Isn't Albert an atheist? And as a grad student in a department that receives a lot of Templeton funding, I can say that the consensus seems to be that they really are pretty good about not trying to unduly influence the people who get their money.
Anyway, Krauss can use "nothing" however he wants, but the point is that he seems to think he's answered the philosophical/theological question when he really he hasn't even said much of anything that's relevant to it.
""Another ad hominem response. He has religious beliefs, or is supported by people who do so his arguments can't be trusted. This without refuting them."
No not at all. Simply adding context. When one introduces religion or spiritualism into the equation, it is important to understand context which might provide for confirmation bias and a particular leaning. I say this because philosophical arguments are ostensibly equivocally interpretive in nature with as many philosophers on one end of the scales counterbalancing those of a different interpretation on the other.
But in the final analysis, it won't be philosophy that will discover the answers, it will be science. That is why science, with its dramatic success rate and prodigiously developing knowledge base, separated from philosophy to become an " .. independent force with the power and authority to challenge the old and construct the new, in the realms both of theory and practice, on the basis of its own principles." Outlined HERE.
The attempt at an holistic link with religion, spirituality through philosophy will always pretty much be a subsequent event. That is not so say these are unimportant in understanding and appreciating the human condition as they relate to science. To be sure, it is important to discuss these issues.
Indeed it was Krauss that sums up, "One is always free, as some people do, to interpret the laws of nature as signs of purpose, as for example Pope Pius did when Belgian physicist-priest George Lemaitre demonstrated that Einstein’s general theory of relativity implied the universe had a beginning. The Pope interpreted this as scientific proof of Genesis, but Lemaitre asked him to stop saying this. The big bang, as it has become known, can be interpreted in terms of a divine beginning, but it can equally be interpreted as removing God from the equation entirely. The conclusion is in the mind of the beholder, and it is outside of the realm of scientific theory and prediction."
"Anyway, Krauss can use "nothing" however he wants, but the point is that he seems to think he's answered the philosophical/theological question when he really he hasn't even said much of anything that's relevant to it."
Exactly right and exactly true. The theological/philosophical question are completely irrelevant to science. One could even go to say theology is anathema to science.
Of the -isms; theism or scientism? Scientism or theism?
No contest really.
Papa, no doubt you've been asked this before, but which one are you in the photo?
I'm on the left, Bilbo, the slightly tubby one. The other is my 'Altar ego' [pardon the pun], the famous top don of the Freedom From Religion Foundation [FFRF], Dan Barker. See HERE.
Hi Papa,
Are you objecting to the following?
"A postive valud of pd, however, is incompatible with any principle or symmetry requiring that it be zero."
Now as far as I can tell, that assertion takes the following form:
If theory T1 states that X > 0, and theory T2 requires that X = 0, then theory T1 is incompatible with theory T2.
If this is a form you take exception to, something has gone very wrong.
Steve
papa posted: ''This would not sit well with Albert's spiritual or theological perspective.''
Albert is an atheist.
''When one introduces religion or spiritualism into the equation, it is important to understand context which might provide for confirmation bias and a particular leaning.''
And of course, atheists are completely immune to bias, dishonesty and stupidity being creature of pure reason eh Paps?
''The theological/philosophical question are completely irrelevant to science.''
Well as long as you agree science can't answer philosophical questions then there's not much to argue with here. The next time someone says 'science disproves theism' or 'why is there something rather than nothing? Science tells us that nothing is unstable! Philosophy: 0 Science: 1' I hope you will point out their confusion.
Krauss makes the Universe come from "nothing" the same way I can get 2+2 to equal 5.
I simply redefine the symbol "5" to mean four object then BAM! 2+2=5.
Krauss in a similar manner simply redefines "nothing" to mean a sort of something.
Atheist philosophers like Albert know that is fundamentally irrational.
>The theological/philosophical question are completely irrelevant to science.
First I love how Paps equals Theology with Philosophy.
Second data is data but the interpretation & meaning of data comes from philosophy of science not science sans philosophy.
Wow Paps you have to date learned nothing. You have no knowledge on how to be a rational Atheist.
You simply believe or disbelieve as you see fit based on your feelings no doubt not your intellect.
I wonder what that must feel like?
To all my fellow posters here on Dangerous Idea:
Tomorrow being Ash Wednesday, I will be commencing my third annual "Internet Fast" for the duration of Lent. See you all on the other side after Easter!
No great intellectual pursuits this year in lieu of websurfing. I intend to re-read the entire (unfortunately unfinished) Childe Cycle by Gordon R. Dickson. Read the first 6 volumes as they came out from the 1960's through 1984. Never read the 4 volumes that came out after that, however.
@BenYachov:
"Wow Paps you have to date learned nothing."
Is that the Krauss nothing or the Philosopher's nothing no-thing?
At any rate, this "nothing", besides philosophy also includes science.
:-)
Good one grodrigues!
I needed a laugh. You da man!
Oh & have a good fast Bob.
Paps.....would it kill ya to...oh never mind. It's hopeless at this point.
"Wow Paps you have to date learned nothing. You have no knowledge on how to be a rational Atheist. You simply believe or disbelieve as you see fit based on your feelings no doubt not your intellect."
WATCH THIS and THEN THIS.
Hi Papa,
I must say that you're a jolly-looking fellow. I suspect you would be good company, regardless of our differences.
>WATCH THIS and THEN THIS.
This is just an example of what Victor called the "we are winning" argument.
What does that have to do with rational arguments and rational investigations of truth?
A majority of uneducated people at one time believed the world was flat.
Education standards in America are crap these days so I could then turn this around and argue there is correlation between growing non-belief with growing ignorance and stupidity.*
http://www.cybercollege.com/plume8.htm
*Mind you I am not making such an argument because it would be as facile as anything Paps would produce.
Gee Paps would it kill ya.....Oh I guess it would.
It's impossible to believe you where ever a teacher.
LENT begins so I am going to fast.
Maybe Bob has the right Idea.....
FWIW
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/evidence-for-god-design-part-1-order-in-the-cosmos/
http://www.saintsandsceptics.org/evidence-for-god-design-part-2-fine-tuning-of-the-cosmos/
Ben
'A majority of uneducated people at one time believed the world was flat."
A majority of uneducated people at one time believed the world was created by a god. And some still do but the numbers are getting smaller.
>A majority of uneducated people at one time believed the world was created by a god.
What part of "Mind you I am not making such an argument because it would be as facile as anything Paps would produce." do ye not understand?
The argument is not valid regardless.
Wow Paps you just can't read the Queen's English now can you?
Ben
"This is just an example of what Victor called the "we are winning" argument.
What does that have to do with rational arguments and rational investigations of truth?"
Well, lots. Truth ultimately wins out in the end.
Ben
"What part of "Mind you I am not making such an argument because it would be as facile as anything Paps would produce." do ye not understand?"
I'm pleased that you aren't because any such argument about the reality of the existence of a god would indeed be facile, regardless of what I may produce. God is being hoisted by his own philosophical petard.
>Well, lots. Truth ultimately wins out in the end.
Really? Well it's nice to see you developing a form of belief in
Divine Providence.
After all in a hypothetical godless reality there
is no reason to believe Truth will win out or not in the end since there are no ultimate goals or final causality in a godless reality or even truth for that matter in some views.
At best just the illusion of it.
Perhaps there is hope for even you?
Post a Comment