Something and Nothing

THWOTH · **#21** by **THWOTH** » Apr 28, 2012 2:10 pm

Teuton wrote:Here's another comment by David Albert, who reviewed Krauss's book and was called a "moronic philosopher" by Krauss (despite the fact that Albert has also a Ph.D. in physics):

http://philocosmology.wordpress.com/201 ... omment-275

Krauss claims that the laws of quantum mechanics can provide an answer to the old philosophical question of why there is something rather than nothing...

Is this a spat about real world physics transgressing onto philosophy's lawn? Is physics unable, or necessarily excluded from, addressing this question? is the answer not to be found in physics, nor can/will it ever be?

(I see that Yair is among the commentors).

Teuton · **#22** by **Teuton** » Apr 28, 2012 2:17 pm

There cannot be any causal explanation of why there is something rather than nothing, since the existence of a cause or causes presupposes the existence of something. So the only conceivable explanation is a modal explanation: There is something rather than nothing, because there must be something and there cannot be nothing.
The theistic explanation is such a modal explanation: There is something rather than nothing, because there is a god who is a necessary being.

THWOTH · **#23** by **THWOTH** » Apr 28, 2012 2:20 pm

I don't think Krauss disputes this does he?

Matt_B · **#24** by **Matt_B** » Apr 28, 2012 3:04 pm

THWOTH wrote:I don't think Krauss disputes this does he?

No. The only thing he's really disputing is the application of a priori philosophy to issues of physical cosmology. But then again, respectable philosophers wouldn't do that, would they?

hackenslash · **#25** by **hackenslash** » May 05, 2012 11:11 pm

Teuton wrote:Krauss has been fooling around with the word "nothing". His book's title should read "A Universe From Something: Why there is something rather than nothing is a question that isn't answered in this book". Of course, the misleading title he chose sells better.

You keep erecting this fuckwittery, despite being beaten about the head repeatedly with just how fuckwitted it is. How about you display a little honesty here (and maybe a little aptitude at absorbing information presented to you)? He isn't being misleading, he's explaining in detail why what we think of as nothing isn't actually nothing, thus the title is entirely appropriate.

hackenslash · **#26** by **hackenslash** » May 05, 2012 11:15 pm

THWOTH wrote:
Teuton wrote:Here's another comment by David Albert, who reviewed Krauss's book and was called a "moronic philosopher" by Krauss (despite the fact that Albert has also a Ph.D. in physics):

http://philocosmology.wordpress.com/201 ... omment-275

Krauss claims that the laws of quantum mechanics can provide an answer to the old philosophical question of why there is something rather than nothing...

Is this a spat about real world physics transgressing onto philosophy's lawn? Is physics unable, or necessarily excluded from, addressing this question? is the answer not to be found in physics, nor can/will it ever be?

(I see that Yair is among the commentors).

No, it's a spat about wibblers thinking they can dictate to physicists about how they use language. Little do they realise that all their wibbling is utterly fucking useless in elucidating reality.

As Cito would say, this is spoon-bending at its finest.

Teuton · **#27** by **Teuton** » May 06, 2012 12:03 am

hackenslash wrote:He isn't being misleading, he's explaining in detail why what we think of as nothing isn't actually nothing, thus the title is entirely appropriate.

No, it isn't. The point is that what Krauss thinks of as nothing isn't actually nothing.

"What part of 'nothing' don't you understand?": http://edwardfeser.blogspot.de/2011/11/ ... t-you.html

orpheus · **#28** by **orpheus** » May 06, 2012 4:19 am

(Uncle Orph'sTM popcorn - "great taste; zero calories!" )

hackenslash · **#29** by **hackenslash** » May 06, 2012 9:53 am

Teuton wrote:
hackenslash wrote:He isn't being misleading, he's explaining in detail why what we think of as nothing isn't actually nothing, thus the title is entirely appropriate.

No, it isn't. The point is that what Krauss thinks of as nothing isn't actually nothing.

"What part of 'nothing' don't you understand?": http://edwardfeser.blogspot.de/2011/11/ ... t-you.html

Is there a fucking echo in here? That's precisely what I said, and what I have been saying. When physicists talk about nothing they don't mean nothing, which is what Krauss' point has been all along.

Oh, and why are you linking me to what a fucking navel-gazer thinks on the topic? Are you doing that to deliberately piss me off? I don't give a flying fuck what a navel gazer thinks on the topic, including you. When will you ever get the fucking message that staring at the lint in your belly button is fucking worthless?

Mononoke · **#30** by **Mononoke** » May 06, 2012 10:01 am

Teuton wrote:
hackenslash wrote:He isn't being misleading, he's explaining in detail why what we think of as nothing isn't actually nothing, thus the title is entirely appropriate.

No, it isn't. The point is that what Krauss thinks of as nothing isn't actually nothing.

"What part of 'nothing' don't you understand?": http://edwardfeser.blogspot.de/2011/11/ ... t-you.html

But you can't have this 'actual nothing' without violating the laws of physics. This actual nothing philosophy fools around with is impossible as per our understanding of physics.

twistor59 · **#31** by **twistor59** » May 06, 2012 12:28 pm

hackenslash wrote:

Oh, and why are you linking me to what a fucking navel-gazer thinks on the topic? Are you doing that to deliberately piss me off? I don't give a flying fuck what a navel gazer thinks on the topic, including you. When will you ever get the fucking message that staring at the lint in your belly button is fucking worthless?

May be mistaken, but I'm getting a bit of a vibe here that you're not a big fan of philosophy?

campermon · **#32** by **campermon** » May 06, 2012 12:34 pm

twistor59 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:

Oh, and why are you linking me to what a fucking navel-gazer thinks on the topic? Are you doing that to deliberately piss me off? I don't give a flying fuck what a navel gazer thinks on the topic, including you. When will you ever get the fucking message that staring at the lint in your belly button is fucking worthless?

May be mistaken, but I'm getting a bit of a vibe here that you're not a big fan of philosophy?

Yes. Hack has taken that particular metaphysical stance.

:coffee:

hackenslash · **#33** by **hackenslash** » May 06, 2012 12:36 pm

twistor59 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:

Oh, and why are you linking me to what a fucking navel-gazer thinks on the topic? Are you doing that to deliberately piss me off? I don't give a flying fuck what a navel gazer thinks on the topic, including you. When will you ever get the fucking message that staring at the lint in your belly button is fucking worthless?

May be mistaken, but I'm getting a bit of a vibe here that you're not a big fan of philosophy?

I've no problem with philosophy as a tool for engendering proper thinking, but I have absolutely no use for philosophy as an excuse for failing to think properly.

twistor59 · **#34** by **twistor59** » May 06, 2012 12:40 pm

hackenslash wrote:
twistor59 wrote:
hackenslash wrote:

Oh, and why are you linking me to what a fucking navel-gazer thinks on the topic? Are you doing that to deliberately piss me off? I don't give a flying fuck what a navel gazer thinks on the topic, including you. When will you ever get the fucking message that staring at the lint in your belly button is fucking worthless?

May be mistaken, but I'm getting a bit of a vibe here that you're not a big fan of philosophy?

I've no problem with philosophy as a tool for engendering proper thinking, but I have absolutely no use for philosophy as an excuse for failing to think properly.

I could never get into it. Didn't understand the language. Thought qualia were something to shoot and eat.

hackenslash · **#35** by **hackenslash** » May 06, 2012 12:48 pm

The problem for me is that people put too much stock in what philosophers say. It's a classic argumentum ad verecundiam, and teuton here is among the worst offenders. I have no idea what he thinks about anything, because all he does is copy/paste the wibblings of others, and I have no truck with that. It also constitutes, in many respects, telling you what you should think, with nil regard for what observation tells us. Observation isn't just the ultimate arbiter, it's the only arbiter.

Teuton · **#36** by **Teuton** » May 06, 2012 2:11 pm

hackenslash wrote:The problem for me is that people put too much stock in what philosophers say. It's a classic argumentum ad verecundiam, and teuton here is among the worst offenders. I have no idea what he thinks about anything, because all he does is copy/paste the wibblings of others, and I have no truck with that.

Stop spreading lies about me!
I never quote others without putting the quoted text in italics, and I always add the sources.
All other sentences and texts in my posts are mine!

Thomas Eshuis · **#37** by **Thomas Eshuis** » May 06, 2012 2:38 pm

Teuton wrote:
hackenslash wrote:The problem for me is that people put too much stock in what philosophers say. It's a classic argumentum ad verecundiam, and teuton here is among the worst offenders. I have no idea what he thinks about anything, because all he does is copy/paste the wibblings of others, and I have no truck with that.

Stop spreading lies about me!
I never quote others without putting the quoted text in italics, and I always add the sources.
All other sentences and texts in my posts are mine!

Where in his post did he say you do not use quote tags or links to the original source?
He's saying that most times you don't explain your position, but rather quote others.

hackenslash · **#38** by **hackenslash** » May 06, 2012 4:01 pm

Teuton wrote:
hackenslash wrote:The problem for me is that people put too much stock in what philosophers say. It's a classic argumentum ad verecundiam, and teuton here is among the worst offenders. I have no idea what he thinks about anything, because all he does is copy/paste the wibblings of others, and I have no truck with that.

Stop spreading lies about me!
I never quote others without putting the quoted text in italics, and I always add the sources.
All other sentences and texts in my posts are mine!

It isn't a lie. I never accused you of plagiarism, but of pretty much only presenting the opinions of others. I have no idea of what you think, other than that you think your umbilicus is a source of information, which is asinine.

Someone · **#39** by **Someone** » May 06, 2012 5:33 pm

hackenslash · **#40** by **hackenslash** » May 07, 2012 11:58 am

Teuton wrote:
hackenslash wrote:He isn't being misleading, he's explaining in detail why what we think of as nothing isn't actually nothing, thus the title is entirely appropriate.

No, it isn't. The point is that what Krauss thinks of as nothing isn't actually nothing.

"What part of 'nothing' don't you understand?": http://edwardfeser.blogspot.de/2011/11/ ... t-you.html

I've been having a think about this, and I have a question. Are you planning to pen a slew of indignant posts about Mattesons because their hot dogs don't have dogs in?

Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Re: Something and Nothing

Who is online