Re: [humanism-174] (no subject)

From: Mark R. O.
Sent on: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 12:58 AM
Here's the short version.  Dr. Krauss says something can come
from nothing, and yet he says "both nothing and something have
physical quantities."   He also says "absolutely nothing can
turn into something".  This sounds a lot like he describing a null,
in math this is an empty set.   (A very good description of null
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node18.html)
This means that even non-existent things are NOT there. 
(This is math, not my imagination.)  So, he isn't using nothing
in mathematical terms.  Nothing in simple everyday usage means
no thing; not anything, so how does he mean nothing? 
He uses the word in two different contexts.  In one he means nothing
as the number zero.  In that if you take one electron and combine it
with one positron, they cancel each other out.  Or to put it another way
1+(-1)=0.   This is the sum of two things, not a thing and a nothing. 
Wait there is more, he says nothing is unstable, now this is important
because it's contradictory to his belief that the "notions" of inflation
have not been validated.  This is important because if nothing, in this
case a true vacuum, the state of the universe just before the big bang,
is true then the unstable nothing, the universe, did inflate.  His reasoning
validates the thing he denies.  
 
He agrees that the universe had a beginning.  Now here is where
it gets a bit murky, I'm not sure he believes this beginning had a
cause.  (I would like someone to clarify this for me).  He does say
that even space can pop into existence from nothing.  Here he is
using nothing as null.  Is he saying that there is no cause for the
big bang, it just happened?  If so, then I say Tabitha Stephens
wiggled her nose and poof here we are.  Or God is the cause. 
Now, to the best of my understanding, limited as it is, science
generally finds or sees an event or effect and then goes looking
for the cause.  Dr. Krauss doesn't seem to need a cause.  He
seems happy to believe that things can blink in and out of existence
without cause.  In my opinion this goes against the purpose of science. 

This is why I believe he makes a good argument for God, or at least magic.
For without a cause it is magic.  By God, he's a postmodernist. 


M. Orel


On[masked]:41, Tim Campbell wrote:
In a message dated 7/16/[masked]:35:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [address removed] writes:
On Mon, 16 Jul[masked]:43:10 -0400
  "Mark R. Orel" <[address removed]> wrote:
> Mark:
>
> Actually, you put if very well.
>
> Why, yes- what Krauss puts forth makes it plainly
>obvious that there
does not necessarily
exists an omnipotent entity
why omnipotent? Basic requirement for a universe creator is that it be ABLE to create a universe and be WILLING to do so. Any other characteristics are those added by those who WISH for such a being to exist and who WISH that such a being follow THEIR OWN desires.
who
>created both nothing and everything, who reign(s) over
>all the nothingness/everythingness  This is in perfect
>accord with the science of physics! :)
lol, in perfect accord in that the science of physics has no room for any such being without any sort of evidence to support the existence of such a being. Does not negate the possibility, simply makes this creature unnecessary.
Tim Campbell

 
 



Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy