tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post5838276202211539507..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: Ex nihilo ... something somethingJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-20253549916157029432012-03-28T08:44:14.704+01:002012-03-28T08:44:14.704+01:00Thx, my point was about TOF's comment on the &...Thx, my point was about TOF's comment on the "nothing" being recently redefined, which as he says is absolutely nonsense - if we are talking philosophy and the kind of theistic arguments that Krauss and Dawkins believe the book are answering - and that the book is marketed as adressing.<br /><br />This brought the reply from Alexander that "Krauss goes through a number of different Nothings, from old and obviously wrong ones to new and redefined ones. Krauss is not "also wrong", and even a casual read of his book would clarify that".<br /><br />My reading of the book has clarified that Krauss believes nothing is something (or, rather that to do physics on "nothing" it must be something), and even says so - something which indicates he understands little of cosmological arguments. <br /><br />He even seems to think that "Who created the creator" is a meaningfull question, and insists that "An infinite regress of some creative force that begets itself, even some imagined force that is greater than turtles, doesn’t get us any closer to what it is that gives rise to the universe. Nonetheless, this metaphor of an infinite regression may actually be closer to the real process by which the universe came to be than a single creator would explain." <br /><br />Believing that God has begotten himself is so beyond logic, Christian theology and natural philosophy that I wonder who proofreads such books.Bjørn Arehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01491085976273836365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-25465787744862570622012-03-28T03:19:15.770+01:002012-03-28T03:19:15.770+01:00Bjorn,
Alexander may mean, similar to the review&...Bjorn,<br /><br />Alexander may mean, similar to the review's posting, that Krauss has pointed out past thoughts on space and vacuum, and how later on problems with those concepts were discovered.<br /><br />But yes, Krauss basically wrote a book that does little more than show he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about regarding 'something out of nothing' as philosophically argued.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-26062797235853501262012-03-27T21:36:45.756+01:002012-03-27T21:36:45.756+01:00Alexander:
Where does Krauss do that? I have read...Alexander:<br /><br />Where does Krauss do that? I have read the book and can't remember there being much about "different nothings" (as if the can be more than one) anywhere, except from some highly inadequate paragraphs on two pages or so in the preface, where he shows little or no understanding of the debate. <br /><br />He seems to think that nothing is about ... physics ("empty space", "absence of space and time", a state where "laws arose spontaneously"...)?<br /><br />Have I missed something or do you find his musings here adequate?Bjørn Arehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01491085976273836365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-66752013358243923882012-03-27T10:01:30.587+01:002012-03-27T10:01:30.587+01:00Well that's justified. I tried to qualify my c...Well that's justified. I tried to qualify my comments with the phrase "if [Krauss'] critic is right" but of course I'm sniping without having read the book and that's not really playing fair.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-54015960066124385742012-03-26T22:21:06.205+01:002012-03-26T22:21:06.205+01:00May I suggest you guys read the book? Krauss goes ...May I suggest you guys read the book? Krauss goes through a number of different Nothings, from old and obviously wrong ones to new and redefined ones. Krauss is not "also wrong", and even a casual read of his book would clarify that.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10613480150660825848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-24235029011855016442012-03-26T13:08:38.305+01:002012-03-26T13:08:38.305+01:00Krauss is also wrong about the "nothing"...Krauss is also wrong about the "nothing" being recently redefined. That the nothing is the utter absence of something was the original definition.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.com