Nothing, Krauss and something.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Colbert interviews Krauss on the meaning of nothing.

He gives his definition of the biblical nothing and then states that this is the same nothing as a physicists nothing proving he doesn't get the ex nihilio of theology which he dismisses with his redefinition.

He then talks of the universe coming into existence out of that which sounds suspiciously like ex nihilo!

Enjoy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlD6Nb3b1wk#

[Nearly Sane]

Colbert interviews Krauss on the meaning of nothing.

He gives his definition of the biblical nothing and then states that this is the same nothing as a physicists nothing proving he doesn't get the ex nihilio of theology which he dismisses with his redefinition.

He then talks of the universe coming into existence out of that which sounds suspiciously like ex nihilo!

Enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlD6Nb3b1wk#

What's theology's nothing? Is it the same as a philosophical nothing? If not why not?

[Gordon]

It would be useful if you could summarise the key points you mention, such as the definition(s) of 'nothing' that Krauss gives and why he dismisses the theological definition that you suggest he goes on to accept - that seems odd.

Clearly though you've been studying this so you should be well-placed to bring us up to speed regarding the differences and overlaps etc. I think you need to do a bit more work to kick this off.

[Nearly Sane]

'Nothing' is a nightmare. How could we even conceptualise 'nothing' being. Worse what is 'a' nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's theology's nothing? Is it the same as a philosophical nothing? If not why not?

When describing a biblical nothing Krauss has described it as an infinite empty space. At least two of those are properties.

He then says that science explains this biblical nothing and what's happening. Put simply he is not describing the void but the universe where the laws of science operate.

He then argues that space is full of particles and energy. Questioned where these come from he says "nothing". He also uses the words "non existent"


Does he therefore believe that nothing is always a something?

Then of course he is saying that people were fooled into thinking that nothing was nothing when really it was a something full of particles and energy he says came from nothing!

So a theological nothing is summed up by nihilo. Which is not what Krauss thinks people thought was nothing but was something. But less than that.

How are you defining a philosophers nothing?

[Gordon]

When describing a biblical nothing Krauss has described it as an infinite empty space. At least two of those are properties.

He then says that science explains this biblical nothing and what's happening. Put simply he is not describing the void but the universe where the laws of science operate.

He then argues that space is full of particles and energy. Questioned where these come from he says "nothing". He also uses the words "non existent"


Does he therefore believe that nothing is always a something?

Then of course he is saying that people were fooled into thinking that nothing was nothing when really it was a something full of particles and energy he says came from nothing!

So a theological nothing is summed up by nihilo. Which is not what Krauss thinks people thought was nothing but was something. But less than that.

How are you defining a philosophers nothing?

This very confusing, Vlad, possibly due to the way you've set it out.

Let me start with this observation, and assuming you're representing Krauss correctly: would it be fair to say that the biblical idea of 'nothing', dating as it does from antiquity, is bound not to include the likes of particles simply because particle physics was unknown and that Krauss, bearing in mind his speciality, has a more comprehensive recent view on what 'nothing' might involve. Put simply the biblical idea of 'nothing' was understandably inadequate and has been superseded by more recent theories and knowledge.   

So I can't see that people in biblical times were 'fooled' in that the knowledge regarding particles and energy etc was centuries in the future and they conceptualised 'nothing' as best they could. How does Krauss conceptualise 'nothing'?



   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This very confusing, Vlad, possibly due to the way you've set it out.

Let me start with this observation, and assuming you're representing Krauss correctly: would it be fair to say that the biblical idea of 'nothing', dating as it does from antiquity, is bound not to include the likes of particles simply because particle physics was unknown and that Krauss, bearing in mind his speciality, has a more comprehensive recent view on what 'nothing' might involve. Put simply the biblical idea of 'nothing' was understandably inadequate and has been superseded by more recent theories and knowledge.   

So I can't see that people in biblical times were 'fooled' in that the knowledge regarding particles and energy etc was centuries in the future and they conceptualised 'nothing' as best they could. How does Krauss conceptualise 'nothing'?



 

No I'm saying that

A) He assumes he knows what the biblical view of the void was
B) Rejects that model
C) Proceeds to confuse the void with the universe as it is
D) Uses the idea of nihilo when explaining particles and the Universe coming into being
While
E) Failing to understand that Nihilo has been a theological definition of nothing for centuries.

[Gordon]

No I'm saying that

A) He assumes he knows what the biblical view of the void was
B) Rejects that model
C) Proceeds to confuse the void with the universe as it is
D) Uses the idea of nihilo when explaining particles and the Universe coming into being
While
E) Failing to understand that Nihilo has been a theological definition of nothing for centuries.

Let me get this right: your beef with Krauss is that he insists on using current theories and knowledge in conceptualising 'nothing' instead of utilising a biblical perspective that has been superseded? I'm not familiar enough with Krauss's position or the science to comment on your points C and D - perhaps you are, so could you summarise the key points?

Your point E does read like a fallacious argument from tradition and authority unless you can show that the centuries-old theological definition (which is what exactly?) remains relevant outwith theological tradition - for example do particle/quantum physicists find the theological definition of 'nothing' useful?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let me get this right: your beef with Krauss is that he insists on using current theories and knowledge in conceptualising 'nothing' instead of utilising a biblical perspective that has been superseded? I'm not familiar enough with Krauss's position or the science to comment on your points C and D - perhaps you are, so could you summarise the key points?

Your point E does read like a fallacious argument from tradition and authority unless you can show that the centuries-old theological definition (which is what exactly?) remains relevant outwith theological tradition - for example do particle/quantum physicists find the theological definition of 'nothing' useful?

No
He is assuming that the bible when talking about what came before the universe was a failed theory about the universe. Here then he confuses the universe with before the universe.

He also describes the biblical view of nothing as infinite space he has no warrant for that considering the spatial understanding was that space ended at the sky!

So he is confused about just what the bible is talking about.

He then proceeds to say effectively that particles are created ex nihilo and this is how the universe came into being.......which is actually what theologians have been saying for centuries.

His then is a caricature of the biblical
A confusion of the biblical void with a pre particle view of the present universe
A complete ignorance of ex nihilo theology.

He cannot seem to avoid an ex nihilo version of creation and that has been the feature of theology for centuries.

[Gordon]

No
He is assuming that the bible when talking about what came before the universe was a failed theory about the universe. Here then he confuses the universe with before the universe.

He also describes the biblical view of nothing as infinite space he has no warrant for that considering the spatial understanding was that space ended at the sky!

So he is confused about just what the bible is talking about.

Why would what the bible says, dating as it does from antiquity, have any relevance for a modern-day physicist? It might be that he is explaining how recent theories and knowledge have superseded theology: you're the expert on Krauss so is that the context of his remarks or not?

He then proceeds to say effectively that particles are created ex nihilo and this is how the universe came into being.......which is actually what theologians have been saying for centuries.

So, are you saying Krauss is mirroring theology? If he was then surely you'd be happy with that: of course that might not be so, but since you're the expert on Krauss perhaps you can set out any similarities or differences between what Krauss proposes and what theologians propose.

His then is a caricature of the biblical
A confusion of the biblical void with a pre particle view of the present universe
A complete ignorance of ex nihilo theology.

So what: he isn't a theologian and the bible isn't a science book.

He cannot seem to avoid an ex nihilo version of creation and that has been the feature of theology for centuries.

So you say - but is Krauss's approach to 'ex nihilo' the same as that theologians employ?

I'd be surprised if it was since the theology, which you note dates from biblical times, is unlikely to include the likes of particle physics etc that a modern-day scientist like Krauss would take into account.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why would what the bible says, dating as it does from antiquity, have any relevance for a modern-day physicist? It might be that he is explaining how recent theories and knowledge have superseded theology: you're the expert on Krauss so is that the context of his remarks or not?

So, are you saying Krauss is mirroring theology? If he was then surely you'd be happy with that: of course that might not be so, but since you're the expert on Krauss perhaps you can set out any similarities or differences between what Krauss proposes and what theologians propose.

So what: he isn't a theologian and the bible isn't a science book.

So you say - but is Krauss's approach to 'ex nihilo' the same as that theologians employ?

I'd be surprised if it was since the theology, which you note dates from biblical times, is unlikely to include the likes of particle physics etc that a modern-day scientist like Krauss would take into account.

You are deviating from the issue of Krauss and the definition of nothing something chronic here. The use of the bible to a physicist is neither here nor there unless of course he wishes to base an argument on it as Krauss does.

And when he does he gets things badly wrong.

So how does he fair with the definition of nothing?

He tells us that nothing is something. That there is nothing resembling empty space because there are particles popping up all the time.

And where do these particles come from? Nothing, non existence he assures us.

Are you beginning to see the difficulty he is in? He has both argued that nothing is a something and that nothing is non existence and that the something that fills nothing comes from er, nothing.

I have no beef with space being filled up but I have when I'm told by Krauss that that space equals what I understand by the term nothing.

[Gordon]

You are deviating from the issue of Krauss and the definition of nothing something chronic here. The use of the bible to a physicist is neither here nor there unless of course he wishes to base an argument on it as Krauss does.

And when he does he gets things badly wrong.

So how does he fair with the definition of nothing?

He tells us that nothing is something. That there is nothing resembling empty space because there are particles popping up all the time.

And where do these particles come from? Nothing, non existence he assures us.

Are you beginning to see the difficulty he is in? He has both argued that nothing is a something and that nothing is non existence and that the something that fills nothing comes from er, nothing.

I have no beef with space being filled up but I have when I'm told by Krauss that that space equals what I understand by the term nothing.

It might be beneficial, Vlad, if you set out more clearly what Krauss is actually saying about 'nothing' and how that contrasts with the theological view of 'nothing': in effect give us some operational definitions that we can talk about. You're just chucking about words and phrases without giving any context to their use and, as such, it is impossible to know what your point actually is (aside from it seems that you don't like Krauss).

Why not put the bible to one side initially and start by summarising what you thing Krauss implies by 'nothing'. Once we understand that then you can pick up the bible and explain the theological view of 'nothing' - and then we can contrast to two to see where there are similarities and differences and what the reasons for these might be.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It might be beneficial, Vlad, if you set out more clearly what Krauss is actually saying about 'nothing' and how that contrasts with the theological view of 'nothing': in effect give us some operational definitions that we can talk about. You're just chucking about words and phrases without giving any context to their use and, as such, it is impossible to know what your point actually is (aside from it seems that you don't like Krauss).

Why not put the bible to one side initially and start by summarising what you thing Krauss implies by 'nothing'. Once we understand that then you can pick up the bible and explain the theological view of 'nothing' - and then we can contrast to two to see where there are similarities and differences and what the reasons for these might be.

I think you are concentrating too much on the theological comparison and not at all on the inherent contradiction in Krauss's definition of nothing.

Namely that nothing is teaming with particles which come from a state of nothing which is non existent.

This is Krauss's confusion and I certainly am not going to own it. I gave a link to Krauss explanation. Did you bother to use it?

What he is actually saying is that nothing is a something but there is another nothing which really is nothing.

It is no big deal that energy suffuses all of space. In fact that is recognised in the question why something and not nothing. A question which transcends a universal beginning or an eternal universe.

Science though explains things in the universe by means of other things in the universe

[Gordon]

I think you are concentrating too much on the theological comparison and not at all on the inherent contradiction in Krauss's definition of nothing.

Namely that nothing is teaming with particles which come from a state of nothing which is non existent.

This is Krauss's confusion and I certainly am not going to own it. I gave a link to Krauss explanation. Did you bother to use it?

What he is actually saying is that nothing is a something but there is another nothing which really is nothing.

It is no big deal that energy suffuses all of space. In fact that is recognised in the question why something and not nothing. A question which transcends a universal beginning or an eternal universe.

Science though explains things in the universe by means of other things in the universe

So, the bottom line here is that you don't agree with Krauss on what 'nothing' might represent and it seems you much prefer the biblical view of 'nothing'. These two versions of 'nothing' differ: for example, you note that Krauss mentions particles and the bible doesn't, so presumably you know where Krauss is going wrong? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, the bottom line here is that you don't agree with Krauss on what 'nothing' might represent and it seems you much prefer the biblical view of 'nothing'. These two versions of 'nothing' differ: for example, you note that Krauss mentions particles and the bible doesn't, so presumably you know where Krauss is going wrong?

The bottom line is that Krauss has two contradictory definitions of nothing.
That's outside any 'biblical' consideration.
His first definition of nothing is in fact a something.
His second definition is a nothing as widely understood.
Before considering any fight he has picked with theology he already wants his cake and eat it.

I am happy that there is.... note the word 'is' ..........no true vacuum. But that makes that a something.

I am happy that particles are found to apparently come out of an actual nothing.

I am even happy that scientists have jokingly hung onto the word nothing to describe a something as a kind of nerdy pisstake.......

You asked me to leave aside the biblical...something Krauss can't and I have.

Krauss still comes out owned, in the video by Colbert.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, the bottom line here is that you don't agree with Krauss on what 'nothing' might represent and it seems you much prefer the biblical view of 'nothing'. These two versions of 'nothing' differ: for example, you note that Krauss mentions particles and the bible doesn't, so presumably you know where Krauss is going wrong?

Which biblical view of nothing are you referring to here?
The Krauss caricature version or one of the others?

[Gordon]

The bottom line is that Krauss has two contradictory definitions of nothing.
That's outside any 'biblical' consideration.
His first definition of nothing is in fact a something.
His second definition is a nothing as widely understood.
Before considering any fight he has picked with theology he already wants his cake and eat it.

I am happy that there is.... note the word 'is' ..........no true vacuum. But that makes that a something.

I am happy that particles are found to apparently come out of an actual nothing.

I am even happy that scientists have jokingly hung onto the word nothing to describe a something as a kind of nerdy pisstake.......

You asked me to leave aside the biblical...something Krauss can't and I have.

Krauss still comes out owned, in the video by Colbert.

So, if Krauss's thesis that 'nothing' isn't quite what it seems, since there are particles etc, and you say you are 'happy' with that, what exactly is your problem?

[Gordon]

Which biblical view of nothing are you referring to here?
The Krauss caricature version or one of the others?

Why don't you set them all out and we can compare and contrast definitions - that would avoid confusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why don't you set them all out and we can compare and contrast definitions - that would avoid confusion.

Sorry Gordon but you've said you think I preferred the biblical version so what do you mean by that?

You seem to be wanting me to follow orders again. I have to tell you that this gentleman.......is not for punking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, if Krauss's thesis that 'nothing' isn't quite what it seems, since there are particles etc, and you say you are 'happy' with that, what exactly is your problem?

That his nothing is really a something in some circumstances and an actual nothing in others.
His assertion that the meaning of nothing was changed by physics when in fact it was only in one sense appropriated to describe a something.
And that's before his biblical misunderstandings chiefly his thesis that when the bible talks about the void it is actually talking about a nineteenth century conception of a vacuum.
His confusion of what was before the universe with what is now in the universe and the contradictory definition of nothing which falls out of his explanation for virtual particles and the universe......but then I find myself repeating myself.

[BeRational]

That his nothing is really a something in some circumstances and an actual nothing in others.
His assertion that the meaning of nothing was changed by physics when in fact it was only in one sense appropriated to describe a something.
And that's before his biblical misunderstandings chiefly his thesis that when the bible talks about the void it is actually talking about a nineteenth century conception of a vacuum.
His confusion of what was before the universe with what is now in the universe and the contradictory definition of nothing which falls out of his explanation for virtual particles and the universe......but then I find myself repeating myself.

So how do you know there was once nothing?

How do you know it's possible for there to be nothing?

Has anyone ever seen a nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So how do you know there was once nothing?

How do you know it's possible for there to be nothing?

Has anyone ever seen a nothing?

Well Krauss tells us that the universe came out of nothing.......does that help?

As for your second question Krauss tells us that virtual particles pop out of nothing........does that help also?

[BeRational]

Well Krauss tells us that the universe came out of nothing.......does that help?

As for your second question Krauss tells us that virtual particles pop out of nothing........does that help also?

He talks about the Quantum foam thing I think as I have read books, but do not understand particle physics.

The point is that his view of nothing I think always has the potential to be something as you say virtual particles appear and disappear all the time. Where do they come from, where do they go.
I think this is not known.

I think theists generally like certainty, and do not like this not knowing.

Do you feel that the bible stops you worrying about all this sciency unknown stuff with its certainty?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So how do you know there was once nothing?

How do you know it's possible for there to be nothing?

Has anyone ever seen a nothing?

Those who say they have observed virtual particles appearing out of nothing?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you feel that the bible stops you worrying about all this sciency unknown stuff with its certainty?

What a patronising crock are you always such an oaf?