|
|
.
Dec 9, 2022 19:20:12 GMT
Post by Sarge on Dec 9, 2022 19:20:12 GMT
However, it should also be noted that Krauss’s book “A Universe from Nothing” has been panned by other physicists specifically for making this mistake, which is at best misleading to laymen readers, and at worst equivocating with the term nothing. So when I say “no, he doesn’t”, I’m being charitable and assuming he’s not intentionally trying to mislead people, but making an artistic choice to be clever with his use of words. This. Even if Krauss is right in the context of physics, on which I am in no position to comment, Krauss has debated creationists before - by claiming "from nothing", he is giving them ammunition. "See? You DO believe the universe was created from nothing!" Maybe he's trying to appropriate the concept from creationists, sort of like Bernie Sanders is freely using the term "socialism", but I am not convinced that's an entirely good idea. Creationists are irrelevant. IRL science produces works, creationism doesn't. Irrational people will believe in creationism. Once you accept the irrational (religion) as rational, you are intellectually compromised and can believe anything. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 9, 2022 19:33:07 GMT
Post by captainbryce on Dec 9, 2022 19:33:07 GMT
The word “social” in democracy is redundant (as all democracies are social). Which countries are you referring to? And how are they functionally different from any other democracy? "Socialism" is used synonymously with Marxism and Leninism So is communism. But there’s clearly a difference between socialism and communism. So just because some ignorant people use them synonymous doesn’t mean they are using it correctly. I don’t care. Conservatives is often uneducated and ignorant. The fact that they don’t know what they’re talking about doesn’t mean I should dumb down my use of language to their understanding. I’m not trying to appeal to conservatives. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 9, 2022 19:38:17 GMT
Post by captainbryce on Dec 9, 2022 19:38:17 GMT
No, he doesn’t! When Lawrence Krauss is talking about “nothing”, he’s speaking about quantum states which still have properties. There’s a difference between “nothing” as used by cosmologists, and how it’s used in philosophy. It does not refer to the absence of everything. So it would be a mischaracterization of Krauss’s argument to apply his usage to “philosophical nothing”. Even if you take away all matter and all energy so that there is only empty space…the laws of physics are still there, which means that quantum fields still permeate the Universe. That includes the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces. Spacetime is still there, governed by General Relativity. The fundamental constants are all still in place, all with the same values we observe them to have. A quantum mechanical system in its lowest energy state might look a lot like nothing, even from a mathematical perspective, but there would still be minute particles and energy bouncing around in there. You have confused Krauss' explanation of why empty space is not empty, with nothingness. It's true that empty space is not empty because the fabric of the universe is something, it's always there. But that's our universe that was created during the big bang. Nothingness is literally nothing, no universe, nothing. Simplified he's saying that nothingness is unstable, and the universe was inevitable. He does in fact mean the universe came from nothing. Whether he's right or not is a different matter and there is no way at this time to prove one way or the other, my point was to inform you that there are cosmologists who say the universe came from nothing. I’m actually NOT confused at all. I was pointing out two different usages of “nothing” which are different from the philosophical usage. Anyone saying there wasn’t anything before the Big Bang is lying to you because there is no way to gather evidence of what was before the Big Bang. “Nothingness is unstable” would be a nonsensical statement if nothing referred to the absence of everything. “Instability” would be the measurement of a property! Which means that it’s a measurement of “something”. My point is that Krauss does NOT mean “nothing” as you understand it. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 9, 2022 20:02:42 GMT
Post by Sarge on Dec 9, 2022 20:02:42 GMT
You have confused Krauss' explanation of why empty space is not empty, with nothingness. It's true that empty space is not empty because the fabric of the universe is something, it's always there. But that's our universe that was created during the big bang. Nothingness is literally nothing, no universe, nothing. Simplified he's saying that nothingness is unstable, and the universe was inevitable. He does in fact mean the universe came from nothing. Whether he's right or not is a different matter and there is no way at this time to prove one way or the other, my point was to inform you that there are cosmologists who say the universe came from nothing. I’m actually NOT confused at all. I was pointing out two different usages of “nothing” which are different from the philosophical usage. Anyone saying there wasn’t anything before the Big Bang is lying to you because there is no way to gather evidence of what was before the Big Bang. “Nothingness is unstable” would be a nonsensical statement if nothing referred to the absence of everything. “Instability” would be the measurement of a property! Which means that it’s a measurement of “something”. My point is that Krauss does NOT mean “nothing” as you understand it. I was curious where you were getting this idea, so I looked at a few reviews of his work and it's plain that others have made the same mistake in conflating nothing with "empty space". Krauss often starts by talking about empty space to differentiate it from "nothing" so that viewers don't get confused but apparently, it's not working, or people are only listening halfheartedly. Krauss does mean nothing. Nothing is nothing. What would be the point in saying the universe came from the universe, think about it. But not everyone has made that mistake. I encourage you to listen to Krauss himself, he has many interviews and panel discussions on YouTube. In any case, Krauss can speak for himself. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 10, 2022 8:07:26 GMT
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 10, 2022 8:07:26 GMT
"Socialism" is used synonymously with Marxism and Leninism So is communism. But there’s clearly a difference between socialism and communism. So just because some ignorant people use them synonymous doesn’t mean they are using it correctly. Doesn't matter. Definitions are tied to common usage, not etymology. You should care, because there is rather a lot of them. And they vote. Both sides try to appeal to the undecided middle, and if you're being accused of being a socialist and you say "sure", then you will be helping to herd them to the conservative side. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 10, 2022 8:12:44 GMT
Sarge likes this
Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 10, 2022 8:12:44 GMT
This. Even if Krauss is right in the context of physics, on which I am in no position to comment, Krauss has debated creationists before - by claiming "from nothing", he is giving them ammunition. "See? You DO believe the universe was created from nothing!" Maybe he's trying to appropriate the concept from creationists, sort of like Bernie Sanders is freely using the term "socialism", but I am not convinced that's an entirely good idea. Creationists are irrelevant. IRL science produces works, creationism doesn't. Irrational people will believe in creationism. Once you accept the irrational (religion) as rational, you are intellectually compromised and can believe anything. Yes, I must admit this is true. They used to have the potential to be relevant in the US, but they have probably been made to seem more influential by the attention given by people such as Dawkins, DeGrasse Tyson and Krauss. I engage with creationists myself, because it's a fun and easy fight. But essentially, it's no more critical than "someone's wrong on the internet". |
|
|
|
.
Dec 11, 2022 15:08:18 GMT
Post by captainbryce on Dec 11, 2022 15:08:18 GMT
I’m actually NOT confused at all. I was pointing out two different usages of “nothing” which are different from the philosophical usage. Anyone saying there wasn’t anything before the Big Bang is lying to you because there is no way to gather evidence of what was before the Big Bang. “Nothingness is unstable” would be a nonsensical statement if nothing referred to the absence of everything. “Instability” would be the measurement of a property! Which means that it’s a measurement of “something”. My point is that Krauss does NOT mean “nothing” as you understand it. I was curious where you were getting this idea, so I looked at a few reviews of his work and it's plain that others have made the same mistake in conflating nothing with "empty space". Krauss often starts by talking about empty space to differentiate it from "nothing" so that viewers don't get confused but apparently, it's not working, or people are only listening halfheartedly. Krauss does mean nothing. Nothing is nothing. What would be the point in saying the universe came from the universe, think about it. But not everyone has made that mistake. I encourage you to listen to Krauss himself, he has many interviews and panel discussions on YouTube. In any case, Krauss can speak for himself. “Nothing” has no properties! Do you agree or disagree? |
|
|
|
.
Dec 11, 2022 15:15:03 GMT
Post by captainbryce on Dec 11, 2022 15:15:03 GMT
So is communism. But there’s clearly a difference between socialism and communism. So just because some ignorant people use them synonymous doesn’t mean they are using it correctly. Doesn't matter. Definitions are tied to common usage, not etymology. Socialism does not mean communism in common usage either. The fact that people commonly confuse the two is irrelevant. It doesn’t mean that we’re not socialists anymore. I don’t think so. For one thing, I’m not trying to appeal to the undecided middle in part because I don’t believe there are such people to begin with. But mostly I’m concerned with EDUCATING those who are both politically curious AND who share the same values. And that begins by explaining to them what socialism actually is, not pretending it’s what conservatives THINK it is. There are more progressives than there are neocons, and since there are more that already share my values, why would I waste time trying to appeal to those who are further away from them? That’s the mistake that Democrats tend to make, and why they usually lose! |
|
|
|
.
Dec 12, 2022 3:09:31 GMT
Post by Sarge on Dec 12, 2022 3:09:31 GMT
I was curious where you were getting this idea, so I looked at a few reviews of his work and it's plain that others have made the same mistake in conflating nothing with "empty space". Krauss often starts by talking about empty space to differentiate it from "nothing" so that viewers don't get confused but apparently, it's not working, or people are only listening halfheartedly. Krauss does mean nothing. Nothing is nothing. What would be the point in saying the universe came from the universe, think about it. But not everyone has made that mistake. I encourage you to listen to Krauss himself, he has many interviews and panel discussions on YouTube. In any case, Krauss can speak for himself. “Nothing” has no properties! Do you agree or disagree? Which nothing, your philosophical nothing (whatever that is), a scientific nothing, a colloquial nothing, or likely a nothing that is dependent on my reply? Figure it and say what you want to say. Edit, I'm getting strong deja vu from this discussion. We have to accept that either something came from nothing, or something always was, and both are beyond human comprehension. Nothing as I would define it, is nothing, which I've already said. If you disagree with the idea then your beef is with Krauss. If you disagree about the meaning of nothing then there is nothing new, I can say. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 12, 2022 17:55:53 GMT
Post by gadreel on Dec 12, 2022 17:55:53 GMT
And goes out true to form by playing victim and hijacking a thread, lol. He/she really is a great admin.
Yup confirmation, and a new account which he should have done a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
.
Dec 16, 2022 11:47:14 GMT
Post by captainbryce on Dec 16, 2022 11:47:14 GMT
“Nothing” has no properties! Do you agree or disagree? Which nothing, your philosophical nothing (whatever that is), a scientific nothing, a colloquial nothing, or likely a nothing that is dependent on my reply? Figure it and say what you want to say. I’ve already asked the relevant question (which you are now dodging). I don’t need to figure anything out because I’m not the one making the claim; YOU ARE! So you’re the one who needs to explain WHICH “nothing” you’re making the claim about, hence my question. So again, does “nothing” (as YOU are using it) have any properties? Yes or no? No, we DON’T have to accept either one. We can take an agnostic position (which is the only honest position) and admit that we don’t know. By insisting that “we” have to take one of those two positions you’re creating a false dichotomy! That is a tautology; so you haven’t actually said anything. What we need to know in order to advance the discussion is a working definition of nothing. You cannot define a word by using the same word in the definition! No, actually my beef is with you since you’re the one making the statement here and now. The fact that you are appealing to Krauss (or at least your interpretation of what he was saying is irrelevant). Krauss is not here; you are! So you have the responsibility of explaining what YOU mean when you’re using words like nothing and drawing conclusions about it. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 16, 2022 20:17:03 GMT
clusium likes this
Post by Sarge on Dec 16, 2022 20:17:03 GMT
Which nothing, your philosophical nothing (whatever that is), a scientific nothing, a colloquial nothing, or likely a nothing that is dependent on my reply? Figure it and say what you want to say. I’ve already asked the relevant question (which you are now dodging). [Part where I answer the question is cropped out. -Sarge] I don’t need to figure anything out because I’m not the one making the claim; [This is just a straight up lie. You have made claims about the universe and about Krauss with no reasoning or evidence behind them - Sarge] YOU ARE! So you’re the one who needs to explain WHICH “nothing” [No, you introduced the ideas of different kinds of nothingness - Sarge] you’re making the claim about, hence my question. So again, does “nothing” (as YOU are using it) have any properties? Yes or no? No, we DON’T have to accept either one. We can take an agnostic position [You didn't do that-Sarge] (which is the only honest position) and admit that we don’t know. By insisting that “we” have to take one of those two positions you’re creating a false dichotomy! [Fair enough, then stop lecturing others about something from nothing - Sarge]That is a tautology; so you haven’t actually said anything. [You probably want me to say something different because you want to trip me up with my own words, your favorite super obvious tactic but nothing in this context is the absence of everything.] What we need to know in order to advance the discussion [You know what I mean. You didn't have a problem understanding nothing when you replied to MCDemuth -Sarge] is a working definition of nothing. You cannot define a word by using the same word in the definition! No, actually my beef is with you since you’re the one making the statement here and now. The fact that you are appealing to Krauss (or at least your interpretation of what he was saying is irrelevant). Krauss is not here; you are! [Krauss work is here, it exists - Sarge] So you have the responsibility of explaining what YOU mean when you’re using words like nothing and drawing conclusions about it. [What conclusion did I draw that confuses you and I will attempt to explain it - Sarge]Nothing is nothing. I answered your question, jc stinkysock. I had this identical conversation with the admin formerly known as admin, practically word for word, several times. All this started because you made a mistake saying no scientist claims something from nothing and I made you aware of Krauss. It wasn't a big deal, but you've gone full Streisand. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 16, 2022 23:05:27 GMT
Post by captainbryce on Dec 16, 2022 23:05:27 GMT
I didn’t introduce the concept of nothing motherfucker - YOU DID! You made a claim “something can’t come from nothing”. Therefore YOU need to define what YOU mean by nothing. This isn’t hard! You’re just being willfully ignorant right now. Your statement doesn’t mean anything until you define nothing. I didn’t. You’re the one doing that motherfucker!  This could have gone a lot faster had you simply said that when asked instead of all this tap dancing!  Now, if “nothing” is the absense of everything, then does nothing have any properties? Yes or no? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
.
Dec 17, 2022 4:28:17 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2022 4:28:17 GMT
We have to accept that either something came from nothing, or something always was No, we DON’T have to accept either one. We can take an agnostic position (which is the only honest position) and admit that we don’t know. By insisting that “we” have to take one of those two positions you’re creating a false dichotomy! Well, you can't take both or neither, which is what your "agnostic position" pretends to not do. It's perfectly acceptable to say you don't know, and anyone who says otherwise is lying. But weighing the options, which do you think is more in line with universal physics? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
.
Dec 17, 2022 4:39:04 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2022 4:39:04 GMT
Krauss does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. Dude. The title of his book is literally "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing". Boiled down, he's saying there is matter and energy because there is matter and energy. I believe you call this a tautology. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 17, 2022 5:42:58 GMT
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 17, 2022 5:42:58 GMT
Deleted because you people are not able to answer simple a hypnotical question But i did expect that would happen. You are a strict schoolmarm. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 17, 2022 5:51:30 GMT
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 17, 2022 5:51:30 GMT
You don't need to prove that you believe in God. But if you claim God, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate God's existence. I can claim that my socks are sentient, but without offering any sort of evidence in that regard, you can claim I am insane. And you would have a stronger case for that view, than I for mine. I need to demonstrate God's existence to you so you don't call me crazy? If you believe your socks are sentient, you only need to prove that they are if you want me to believe it, too. Otherwise, all you need is sufficient reason to believe. Show me that and I won't call you crazy regardless of whether or not your socks are sentient. No, you need to demonstrate God’s existence beyond a shadow of doubt if you want me to accept him as having any authority over me. This is separation of church and state. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 17, 2022 6:06:45 GMT
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 17, 2022 6:06:45 GMT
Krauss does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. Dude. The title of his book is literally "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing". Boiled down, he's saying there is matter and energy because there is matter and energy. I believe you call this a tautology. Nothing does not have an existence, it is nonexistence. You guys would not such pains in the ass with your mission to spread the Good News if you would understand there are two realms: the literal and literary. Both are equally important, and you can tell me all about the literary one, but only the physical has stuff in it we can count one. Has the human race decided how many gods there or which religion tribe has the correct one(s) or do we need to fight more wars over it? If your God’s realm exists fine, it doesn’t exist for me, and I have no obligation to anyone to pretend it’s real so they can feel confident they are not wasting their time believing in him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
.
Dec 17, 2022 6:13:00 GMT
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2022 6:13:00 GMT
Dude. The title of his book is literally "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing". Boiled down, he's saying there is matter and energy because there is matter and energy. I believe you call this a tautology. Nothing does not have an existence, it is nonexistence. You guys would not such pains in the ass with your mission to spread the Good News if you would understand there are two realms: the literal and literary. Both are equally important, and you can tell me all about the literary one, but only the physical has stuff in it we can count one. Has the human race decided how many gods there or which religion tribe has the correct one(s) or do we need to fight more wars over it? If your God’s realm exists fine, it doesn’t exist for me, and I have no obligation to anyone to pretend it’s real so they can feel confident they are not wasting their time believing in him. You continue to convince yourself that I'm proselytizing as if I give a single rat's ass hair what you believe. Which of those options do you think is more in line with physics? No comment? Then step aside. |
|
|
|
.
Dec 17, 2022 6:49:00 GMT
Post by paulslaugh on Dec 17, 2022 6:49:00 GMT
Nothing does not have an existence, it is nonexistence. You guys would not such pains in the ass with your mission to spread the Good News if you would understand there are two realms: the literal and literary. Both are equally important, and you can tell me all about the literary one, but only the physical has stuff in it we can count one. Has the human race decided how many gods there or which religion tribe has the correct one(s) or do we need to fight more wars over it? If your God’s realm exists fine, it doesn’t exist for me, and I have no obligation to anyone to pretend it’s real so they can feel confident they are not wasting their time believing in him. You continue to convince yourself that I'm proselytizing as if I give a single rat's ass hair what you believe. Which of those options do you think is more in line with physics? No comment? Then step aside.I was answering your other question. However, Miss Bossy: But weighing the options, which do you think is more in line with universal physics?First up, all physics are universal. All particles in existence behave the same in every corner of the universe. Atheism is more in line with physics because whether an intelligent creator being exists or not has no bearing on science. There is no way to test metaphysical events in nonexistence because we use tools, maths, methods, and theories that can only deal with physical evidence and empirical data. There maybe millions of gods, Hindus claim this, and you’re atheist toward all but one of them, while I’m atheist toward all of them. We have more in common than you realize. I don’t appreciate God’s name is on my money. Can we both agree it should come off with a return to Land of E Pluribus Unum, not my God is Triumphant over you and yours?  |
|
