Nothing, Krauss and something.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

No I enjoy science. If you had more understanding of theology and indeed science you would see that there is nothing threatening to theology ultimately from science.

In fact, Krauss seems to have reintroduced the concept of nihilo.

[BeRational]

What a patronising crock are you always such an oaf?

You did not answer the question.

Do you like the certainty the book seems to give you.

Science cannot do that for the most part.

You will always have lots of stuff that is not known, and you may never know.

It's not ideal, but I would prefer not knowing, to having made up answers.

How about you?

[BeRational]

No I enjoy science. If you had more understanding of theology and indeed science you would see that there is nothing threatening to theology ultimately from science.

In fact, Krauss seems to have reintroduced the concept of nihilo.

You enjoy science, but you think the bible has more to say on scientific matters.
Really?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You enjoy science, but you think the bible has more to say on scientific matters.
Really?

Where have I said that?
I think you have a fixed picture of a theist and cannot refer to other conceptions or evidence.
The bible is quite vague about these matters but one thing is quite clear the term void does not refer to some nineteenth conception of vacuum. How could it? At best science and the bible are only partially overlapping magisteria.

To paraphrase various verdicts on Krauss's book, mainly New scientist and scientific American.

Cracking account of modern physics.......no beef from me.
Shite on theology.......agree but wonder what new scientist actually know...must have been advised
Suspect on origins of the universe.

[Gordon]

Where have I said that?

The bible is quite vague about these matters but one thing is quite clear the term void does not refer to some nineteenth conception of vacuum. How could it?

So, if the bible is vague and couldn't be seen to refer to future conceptions of 'nothing', why did you mention the bible at all in reference to the views of a modern-day cosmologist?

At best science and the bible are only partially overlapping magisteria.

What are the overlapping features and what are the differences?

To paraphrase various verdicts on Krauss's book, mainly New scientist and scientific American.

Cracking account of modern physics.......no beef from me.
Shite on theology.......agree but wonder what new scientist actually know...must have been advised
Suspect on origins of the universe.

What does Krauss actually say about theology, Vlad? This would seem an important point, since you labour it: is it, in your view, that he is dismissive of theology or that he misunderstands theology? Moreover, given its roots in antiquity, why does theology matter in the context of physics and cosmology?

I suspect everyone is 'suspect' on the origins of the universe, which is why scientists continue to study it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, if the bible is vague and couldn't be seen to refer to future conceptions of 'nothing', why did you mention the bible at all in reference to the views of a modern-day cosmologist?

What are the overlapping features and what are the differences?

What does Krauss actually say about theology, Vlad? This would seem an important point, since you labour it: is it, in your view, that he is dismissive of theology or that he misunderstands theology? Moreover, given its roots in antiquity, why does theology matter in the context of physics and cosmology?

I suspect everyone is 'suspect' on the origins of the universe, which is why scientists continue to study it.

Look Gordon did you actually watch the video? It is Krauss who brings it up.
Are you completely ignorant on Krauss take on religion?
See previous replies.
When Krauss talks about nothing he uses the term in two ways.
Firstly his nothing is equivalent to the nineteenth century conception of a vacuum.
He then drags theology into it by claiming that is the biblical idea of the term void. How can it be?
Secondly He uses the term nothing to describe non existence.
So having brought theology in in order to chase it off, he inadvertently introduces the idea of something being created ex nihilo. A staple of theology for centuries.

As a Reverend Craig Revell Horward might say....."That darling, is an absolute fucking theological disaster'.

[Gordon]

Might it be that Krauss is simply pointing out that prior to developments of discoveries in the 20th century (the development of particle physics, such as the Standard Model etc) that both the views of those in antiquity (the biblical stuff you mention) right up to the end of the 19th century (or thereabouts) had one similarity - in that they were all unaware of the sub-atomic stuff?

I suspect that your notion that Krauss is somehow re-introducing theological notions is wide of the mark, since being a well-known atheist I doubt he thinks that there is any divine element involved. Why do you have a obsessive problem with Krauss anyway - surely you could simply just ignore him? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Might it be that Krauss is simply pointing out that prior to developments of discoveries in the 20th century (the development of particle physics, such as the Standard Model etc) that both the views of those in antiquity (the biblical stuff you mention) right up to the end of the 19th century (or thereabouts) had one similarity - in that they were all unaware of the sub-atomic stuff?

No there is the dragging in of theology in order to dismiss it and then of course the central claim that the universe popped out of nothing.......which he foolishly uses two definitions of nothing.....How scientific is that.

I Think you are also accepting his implication that the biblical void and the 19th century definition of a vacuum are one and the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Theology aside.....

This from scientific American

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/

[wigginhall]

I finally watched the Colbert film, and I was surprised at what a good time they were having, it was quite amusing.  I thought an interesting point was when Krauss said there is no need for God, (shades of Laplace, "I had no need of that hypothesis"), and Colbert said, that's an attack.   It's not really.

I also thought as soon as Krauss said there are 3 types of nothing, the whole discussion becomes moot, as you have to specify which type you mean.   

[Gordon]

Theology aside.....

This from scientific American

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/

An interesting read.

What I still don't get though, since nobody here apart from yourself raises Krauss's work as being an important issue, is why he bothers you so - if you never mentioned him again I doubt anyone here would be unduly troubled.

[SteveH]

What would absolute nothingness be, in any case? Presumably, not even time or space: empty space is still space, so not absolute nothingness. It is, in fact, inconceivable.

[Nearly Sane]

What would absolute nothingness be, in any case? Presumably, not even time or space: empty space is still space, so not absolute nothingness. It is, in fact, inconceivable.

Yep, it sounds like something that can be grasped, but whenever you try and think about it, any meaning disappears. Nothing cannot be because if it was it would be something.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

I have no idea how anything is summed up by a word in another language that translates to the first word. What do you think nihilo means?

I think we probably have to caveat all thus with some idea of absolute nothing, since in a day to day idea you can be asked what's on top of the table, and reply nothing, and make perfect sense.


In the idea of absolute nothing, we wouldn't have time or space. Language breaks down because as noted in reply to Steve/Oliphant you cannot talk about what nothing is because it isn't. Trying to answer the question 'Could nothing ever be?' and any answer seems meaningless.

As regards, Krauss's nothing, it definitely seems to be something.

[wigginhall]

What would absolute nothingness be, in any case? Presumably, not even time or space: empty space is still space, so not absolute nothingness. It is, in fact, inconceivable.

NS has already answered, but you get an interesting reply to the question, why is there something rather than nothing, as in fact, nothing cannot exist, or to put it another way, there must be something.  It's quite an odd idea.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS has already answered, but you get an interesting reply to the question, why is there something rather than nothing, as in fact, nothing cannot exist, or to put it another way, there must be something.  It's quite an odd idea.

So what you are saying is that something must necessarily exist.
What about things that are contingent? Can you point to something that exists necessarily?

[wigginhall]

So what you are saying is that something must necessarily exist.
What about things that are contingent? Can you point to something that exists necessarily?

You are bringing in necessity, not me.

[Nearly Sane]

So what you are saying is that something must necessarily exist.
What about things that are contingent? Can you point to something that exists necessarily?

I think wigginhall's point is not about any specific something, rather it's about the impossibility of nothing existing. Introducing 'thing's as separate rather than not nothing isn't relevant at this stage.

[wigginhall]

In any case, the idea of necessity brings in a shit-ton of other stuff, and Vlad may be angling towards necessary existence as an aspect of God, but this is a different topic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think wigginhall's point is not about any specific something, rather it's about the impossibility of nothing existing. Introducing 'thing's as separate rather than not nothing isn't relevant at this stage.

Is nothingness non existence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In any case, the idea of necessity brings in a shit-ton of other stuff, and Vlad may be angling towards necessary existence as an aspect of God, but this is a different topic.

Do I detect the hint of panic and fear of pissed on bonfires?

[wigginhall]

Do I detect the hint of panic and fear of pissed on bonfires?

Do I detect wish fulfilment ?

[Nearly Sane]

Is nothingness non existence?

I don't think that gets us anywhere - that's merely using different words, and words that we use to describe specific nothings. In addition I'm not sure that adding the suffix 'ness' to nothing is useful as that just introduces a slightly different term. Again I think it better to talk about absolute nothing to distinguish it from the normal day to day usage

[Nearly Sane]

Do I detect the hint of panic and fear of pissed on bonfires?

No

[Dicky Underpants]

I don't think that gets us anywhere - that's merely using different words, and words that we use to describe specific nothings. In addition I'm not sure that adding the suffix 'ness' to nothing is useful as that just introduces a slightly different term. Again I think it better to talk about absolute nothing to distinguish it from the normal day to day usage

I'm glad that you, wiggi, and Steve (it would seem) concur on this. On the (mercifully few these days) occasions when I've thought about this, I've always had an intuition on the matter as you've framed it. It may date back to my vague memories of reading Bergson's Creative Evolution decades ago, since he deals with "The Idea of Nothing" at length.

A particularly relevant quote appears on p. 286:

In other words, and however strange our assertion may seem, there is more, and not less, in the idea of an object conceived as "not existing" than in the idea of this same object conceived as "existing"; for the idea of the object "not existing" is necessarily the idea of the object "existing" with, in addition, the representation of an exclusion of this object by the actual reality taken in block.

The whole discussion is found in Chapter 4 of Creative Evolution (available for free online). I'm going to give it another read in the near future, but it's quite a head-fuck. I parted company with Bergson's philosophical basics ('Life-force' or Elan Vital) a long time ago, but I still think he says some illuminating things.