Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Ilya Startsev

Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins: Something from nothing?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I have been reading about Parmenides, and I've realized that the problem stems from him. He originally claimed that existence is indivisible, eternal, does not change, move, or become; and that existence is "all alike," homogeneously and equally distributed, so any difference may not "prevent it from holding together." Frankly, this is a bunch of bull that only non-humans like transhumanists should admire. Nonexistence and existence are inseparable but distinct, for if you take one away from the other, what you get at the end is nothing at all--the complete destruction (about your way, not my way).

 

By pretending that existence is what it is and that it is not related to nonexistence, one simply lives in ignorance--it's like saying that nonexistence is nonexistence and existence is existence for all eternity. All connections, such as between all and some, break down. Again, what we get at the end is complete destruction (about your way, not my way). We need to realize that we are partial and not complete--complete is existence towards which we should strive. We should not strive toward matter--matter alone (particles in void) is nonexistence. If one may have known that at first there was nonexistence, from which he derived existence, and then intentionally forgot about nonexistence, then one is evil because the pretense of existence that is really nonexistence is evil. If Parmenides does not sound evil to you, check whether your ethics is not obsolete.

 

Once again, I offer you the (updated) Model. The Model is the relationships between nonexistence (from the bottom and all around) and existence (the top and in-between). Without the two, the Model will seem like a bunch of words put together that have no relations or connections.

 

Model.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following the Model above that you have (hopefully) at least partially understood, you can now overlay on it all the major philosophies. Again, starting from nonexistence at the bottom (where you start to read) and going toward existence at the top (where you end), we have the following diagram:

 

reality3.jpg


The what, or object, of reality – 1;
the how, or means of sensing, perceiving, or conceiving, of reality – 2

 

Plato: P2, M1 — physicalistic metaphysicist
misintegrating, realistic idealist

 

Aristotle: M2, P1 — metaphysical physicalist
integrating, idealistic realist/mystic

 

Kant: M2, E1 — metaphysical epistemologist
disintegrating, idealistic materialist

 

Rand: E2, M1 — epistemological metaphysicist
misintegrating, materialistic/realistic idealist

 

me: E2, P1 — epistemological physicalist
(Rand’s “epistemological,” Aristotle’s “physicalist”)
integrating, materialistic/idealistic realist/mystic


 

Ninth Doctor argued that Kant was not a materialist but a transcendental idealist. Well, a transcendental idealist is like a transcendental humanist, a transidealist is a non-idealist, just as a transhumanist is a non-humanist. Kant was indeed a non-idealist. Moreso, he rejected realism and believed that mysticism was meaningless. That's an eliminative way to figure out that Kant was a materialist. Another way is to look at what he advocated.

 

Kant advocated to not perceive reality as it is (that's mere appearances for Kant), but to go beyond forms and to find particles on the other side. Matter that only consists of particles is what Kant was calling the noumenal reality, and it was his ultimate goal to reach it by the means of his ideas. Thus, Kant fed his consciousness, as every materialist does, to raw and primal matter. Yes, Kant was going against consciousness toward nonexistence. The scary thing is that most philosophers did that, including Rand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krauss' 'something from nothing' (and yes, I've read the book!) indicates 'nothing as an empirical non-reality. This is because the quantum vacuum is a mathematical state beneath our ability to detect or measure.

 

It's reality, btw, is based upon the Heisenberg, which allows for massless particles travelling far in excess of the speed of light. 

 

The Heisenberg, as cited in the text, also indicates that all possible states will eventually occur--a premise also borne out by Feynman's Path integral. 

 

He's moreover made it perfectly clear that para-metaphysical meanderings based upon first-principle reasoning are totally worthless. To cite Penny  Maddy, because science is about 'second' principles, the use of words falls in line, accordingly.

 

Andie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krauss' 'something from nothing' (and yes, I've read the book!) indicates 'nothing as an empirical non-reality. This is because the quantum vacuum is a mathematical state beneath our ability to detect or measure.

 

It's reality, btw, is based upon the Heisenberg, which allows for massless particles travelling far in excess of the speed of light. 

 

The Heisenberg, as cited in the text, also indicates that all possible states will eventually occur--a premise also borne out by Feynman's Path integral. 

 

He's moreover made it perfectly clear that para-metaphysical meanderings based upon first-principle reasoning are totally worthless. To cite Penny  Maddy, because science is about 'second' principles, the use of words falls in line, accordingly.

 

Andie

Yes, vacuum can only be conceived, but at least in a way that connects with physical evidence of perceived and sensed realities. If Krauss conceives of "nothing as an empirical non-reality", then this seems senseless. It's better to conceive of vacuum as structured space, as Nassim Haramein does, although I wouldn't take his word on anything besides vacuum. But the idea of structured vacuum, in my opinion, is pregnant.

 

I am trying to see how Krauss (or Haramein, for that matter) may connect to Objectivism's concept of existence. I am starting to question whether existence is identity now. Identity is one piece of knowledge, but existence is everything (i.e., all knowledge there is). So, Greg was probably right when he basically said that "all is all" and "some is some." In my definition of these terms, "existence is existence," and "identity is identity." You should not take all of knowledge for some specific piece of knowledge. Too much is lost in the process of converting existence to identity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, vacuum can only be conceived, but at least in a way that connects with physical evidence of perceived and sensed realities. If Krauss conceives of "nothing as an empirical non-reality", then this seems senseless. It's better to conceive of vacuum as structured space, as Nassim Haramein does, although I wouldn't take his word on anything besides vacuum. But the idea of structured vacuum, in my opinion, is pregnant.

 

I am trying to see how Krauss (or Haramein, for that matter) may connect to Objectivism's concept of existence. I am starting to question whether existence is identity now. Identity is one piece of knowledge, but existence is everything (i.e., all knowledge there is). So, Greg was probably right when he basically said that "all is all" and "some is some." In my definition of these terms, "existence is existence," and "identity is identity." You should not take all of knowledge for some specific piece of knowledge. Too much is lost in the process of converting existence to identity.

Krauss is mainstream, your Haramein is a crank. You need to confine your remarks to mainstream.

Here, the salient point is that the quantum vacuum isn't structured.

 

In a larger sense, 'doing' philosophy isn't playing uber-magistrate over the way scientists use words. Therefore, as to whether or not Objectivism or any other philosophy can be reconciled with modern science belabors the point: 'nothingness' as described by Krauss is absolutely irrelevant to the metaphysics of existence. 

 

Lastly,as for the internal, objectivist-lexicon meanings of their own terms, as a newbie i have no idea. All i can say is that modern quantum physics will be of no assistance.

 

Andie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andie,

 

Krauss relates vacuum and the universe differently than how the universe is generally conceived to come into existence, that is, through the Big Bang. On the other hand, Objectivists relate existence to the universe. To Objectivists, the universe is eternal; it has no beginning or end (edit: in time, but it is finite in space somehow). Of course, I do not yet see how scientific data about the beginning of the universe (whether from nothing or a singularity) relates to metaphysics or Objectivism's first principle. But what do you think? Did the universe have a beginning at all? And what theory do you lean more toward?

 

Regards,

Ilya

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andie,

 

Krauss relates vacuum and the universe differently than how the universe is generally conceived to come into existence, that is, through the Big Bang. On the other hand, Objectivists relate existence to the universe. To Objectivists, the universe is eternal; it has no beginning or end (edit: in time, but it is finite in space somehow). Of course, I do not yet see how scientific data about the beginning of the universe (whether from nothing or a singularity) relates to metaphysics or Objectivism's first principle. But what do you think? Did the universe have a beginning at all? And what theory do you lean more toward?

 

Regards,

Ilya

If objectivists claim that the universe is eternal, then their claim is grossly inconsistent with the findings of Astrophysics.

 

To this end, i have no idea as to whom you might be referring when you write what's 'generally conceived'. is different than Krauss' work.

 

His findings describe how the big bang might occur through Guth Inflation. His book 'Something from nothing' is an easy read.

 

Andie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW Ilya, existence is existence and identity is identity. The crux lies in recognizing that to correlate existence with identity is to correlate things like man is mortal, or number is quantity, or, in the case of existence is identity - existence is observed, while identity is a perspective on, or derived from the particular existents observed.

 

The philosophical lens focuses on the abstractions here, while the lens of physics is focused on the particulars from which the abstractions are abstracted. - if I have that correct, that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW Ilya, existence is existence and identity is identity. The crux lies in recognizing that to correlate existence with identity is to correlate things like man is mortal, or number is quantity, or, in the case of existence is identity - existence is observed, while identity is a perspective on, or derived from the particular existents observed.

 

The philosophical lens focuses on the abstractions here, while the lens of physics is focused on the particulars from which the abstractions are abstracted. - if I have that correct, that is.

Greg,

 

I'm not sure as to what abstractions might be drawn from Krauss' book that are not given by his own interpretation of the  material therein. Kindly inform.

 

Thx, Andie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . To this end, i have no idea as to whom you might be referring when you write what's 'generally conceived'. is different than Krauss' work.

 

His findings describe how the big bang might occur through Guth Inflation. His book 'Something from nothing' is an easy read.

 

Andie

I have not read the book. All I have seen are his two video presentations: one is his famous 2009 presentation that inspired him to write the book, and the OP. Thank you for clarifications. I thought that Krauss wanted to differentiate his own theory from the Big Bang theory. I know that his PhD dissertation was related to dark energy, which is a hypothesis explaining vacuum, such as Eridanus Supervoid. Now, what does not make sense to me is, if Krauss says that vacuum has positive and negative gravitation or that it has energy, why is vacuum not structured then? If vacuum is a form of energy, then the energy can structure it through its frequencies and vibrations (even if we cannot measure them yet). What made me think of this is Nikola Tesla's quote: “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”

 

FWIW Ilya, existence is existence and identity is identity. The crux lies in recognizing that to correlate existence with identity is to correlate things like man is mortal, or number is quantity, or, in the case of existence is identity - existence is observed, while identity is a perspective on, or derived from the particular existents observed.

 

The philosophical lens focuses on the abstractions here, while the lens of physics is focused on the particulars from which the abstractions are abstracted. - if I have that correct, that is.

Well, "man is mortal" is not even an essential feature of man, since mortality applies to every organism. Which means that, even for an abstraction, identity is not enough to explain existence. My question is: How many identities do you need to explain existence? I have done it in 35. But note that the way I was able to explain existence is through its relationship to nonexistence (in my Model, the quantum voids).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not read the book. All I have seen are his two video presentations: one is his famous 2009 presentation that inspired him to write the book, and the OP. Thank you for clarifications. I thought that Krauss wanted to differentiate his own theory from the Big Bang theory. I know that his PhD dissertation was related to dark energy, which is a hypothesis explaining vacuum, such as Eridanus Supervoid. Now, what does not make sense to me is, if Krauss says that vacuum has positive and negative gravitation or that it has energy, why is vacuum not structured then? If vacuum is a form of energy, then the energy can structure it through its frequencies and vibrations (even if we cannot measure them yet). What made me think of this is Nikola Tesla's quote: “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”

 

Well, "man is mortal" is not even an essential feature of man, since mortality applies to every organism. Which means that, even for an abstraction, identity is not enough to explain existence. My question is: How many identities do you need to explain existence? I have done it in 35. But note that the way I was able to explain existence is through its relationship to nonexistence (in my Model, the quantum voids).

Ilya,

 

You seem to misunderstand how math is used in Physics--which is fine. It's employ is both counter-intuitive and poorly explained by the physicists themselves. Even Krauss' otherwise excellent book gives only a quick pass-over:

 

If a mathematical formula is proven by hard evidence to explain a phenomena, its use  explains all relevant phenomena, as well.

 

Now here are several examples:

 

* As Einstein wrote, the Lorentz modifies all Newtonians as a universal third coefficient (Spec Rel). Therefore, reasoned Dirac, it likewise modifies the trajectory of an electron, therefore the energy of the emitted photon.

 

The only catch is that for the Dirac to be 'true' (as proven by empirical measurement), symetric/negative particles would have to be accounted for, too, as it's in the equation. E^2=M^2(C^4) is necessary for the proven measurements to be true. But, again, the eeqation gives both + and  - values. 

 

** Yet even before Dirac, Schrodinger's equation used an 'i' to explain the evolution of a wave. Well, the only problem is that 'i' gives negative values as standard high-school math; hence the reality that some light goes into negative time. 'Sounds silly? Well, particles of photons going backwards in time is our best explanation as to how stars convert H to He...not gravity!

 

The field equation for Gen Rel accounts for the reality of negative gravity. As a rough analogy, we don't know prior to measuring whether the gravitationnal  'net' is curved inwards to attract, or outwards to repel. 

 

Likewise, basic Quantum says, at least with respect to Feynman's Sum of Path Integral,  that since all states of the vacuum are possible, cold spots simply are the ones with negative values of energy. 

 

So my answer is that your questions are implicitly answered by the equations. Again, the Scrodinger, Dirac, 2 Einsteins and Feynman are true with respect to all  phenomena that are relevant.

 

Andie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

 

I'm not sure as to what abstractions might be drawn from Krauss' book that are not given by his own interpretation of the  material therein. Kindly inform.

 

Thx, Andie.

My main contention with Krauss is his use of the concept of 'nothing' which equates to me as with or as closely aligned with "non-existence". The reeks highly of Rand's identification of the rectification of the zero. The notion raised in the video about philosophers seemingly having the inside track about 'nothing', also seems right up this alley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main contention with Krauss is his use of the concept of 'nothing' which equates to me as with or as closely aligned with "non-existence". The reeks highly of Rand's identification of the rectification of the zero. The notion raised in the video about philosophers seemingly having the inside track about 'nothing', also seems right up this alley.

DR,

 

Rand wrote: "A vulgar variant of concept stealing, prevalent among avowed mystics and irrationalists, is a fallacy I call the Rectification of the Zero. It consists of regarding "nothing" as a "thing", as a special, different kind ofexistent. This fallacy breeds such symptoms as the notion that presence and absence, or being and non-being, are metaphysical forces of equal power, and that being is the absence of non-being.

 

Krauss wrote that the mystery, as it were, is how our observations (background radiation, etc) stemmed from a non-observable origin--the  quantum vacuum being only a mathematical object, not an empirical reality.

 

In other words, he's simply saying that science uses 'nothing' to mean 'non-observable'. Philosophical rules don't apply. Indeed, Krauss seems a bit fed up that certain philosophers feel that their discipline is an uber-legislator as to how words are used in other domains. It's much like a Physicist telling a biologist that 'plasma' is being used incorrectly.

 

Other wise, in math 'zero' represents a place on the number-line that's as valid as any other. In set theory, the 'null set' is a real set insofar as it gives valid information, particularly based upon choice (ZFC).

 

In philosophy, Sartrian nothingness means that no things might be asserted as a priori essentials. What exists are a posteriori obects due to our participation in the world. Also, from Psychology's zero point of observed response to a stimulus (a significant number !), Deleuze pinned 'Body without organs'.

 

No response tells us something. Zero heartbeat means you're dead.

 

In brief, Rand's thing-ness begs a referent. 

 

Andie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . If a mathematical formula is proven by hard evidence to explain a phenomena, its use  explains all relevant phenomena, as well. . . .

This is a salient point. Some mathematical notions when applied to physics do sound counterintuitive but interesting nonetheless. So the mathematics becomes a sort-of metaphysics that necessitates some of the non-observable physics. By "metaphysics" I mean the notions of existence as well as spacetime. But the issue here is that Objectivism breaks existence down into observable objects, whereas we have no clue of what "objects" vacuum is made of. Of course once objects materialize we can judge them to exist and have identity, but the process of this becoming must still necessitate a referrent of some perhaps deeply entangled state of non-observable universe that is in vacuum. Either way, the Objectivist principle and the physicists' math are two different authorities (even though Rand mentioned that her metaphysics is similar to quantitative nature of math). By having philosophers and scientists follow these different conceptual "necessitators," reconciliation of science and philosophy becomes a problematic experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a salient point. Some mathematical notions when applied to physics do sound counterintuitive but interesting nonetheless. So the mathematics becomes a sort-of metaphysics that necessitates some of the non-observable physics. By "metaphysics" I mean the notions of existence as well as spacetime. But the issue here is that Objectivism breaks existence down into observable objects, whereas we have no clue of what "objects" vacuum is made of. Of course once objects materialize we can judge them to exist and have identity, but the process of this becoming must still necessitate a referrent of some perhaps deeply entangled state of non-observable universe that is in vacuum. Either way, the Objectivist principle and the physicists' math are two different authorities (even though Rand mentioned that her metaphysics is similar to quantitative nature of math). By having philosophers and scientists follow these different conceptual "necessitators," reconciliation of science and philosophy becomes a problematic experience.

The reconciliation of science with philosophy is problematic in two ways:

 

First, it's by definition irreconcilable in the semantic sense. As with my example with 'plasma' between Biology and Physics, 'nothing' to a scientist and a philosopher carry two distinct meanings, each relative to its own field.

 

Second, I agree with Krauss that the problem with at least some philosophy is its tendency to play uber-legislator: your words mean what i say they mean, etc....Krauss is simply telling these people to shove it, and I agree.

 

My personal solution is to see Philosophy as engaged in questions strictly of meaning. only science tells us what is.

 

Lastly, math is not metaphysics. it has its own rules and lexicon, too. Neither is spacetime, as the field equations of GR conform to data.

 

Andie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . Second, I agree with Krauss that the problem with at least some philosophy is its tendency to play uber-legislator: your words mean what i say they mean, etc....Krauss is simply telling these people to shove it, and I agree.

 

My personal solution is to see Philosophy as engaged in questions strictly of meaning. only science tells us what is.

 

Lastly, math is not metaphysics. it has its own rules and lexicon, too. Neither is spacetime, as the field equations of GR conform to data.

 

Andie

It's interesting too that Krauss is leaning more toward contemporary liberalism, whereas Objectivists lean more toward the republican worldview. I am reading a book on moral political metaphors, and it looks like the "uber-legislator" role conforms to following Strict Father morality as authority-centered, hierarchical, self-disciplined, etc.

 

Your view of philosophy seems to be narrowed down to semantics. However, it is more conceptual than merely linguistic. Spacetime is a mathematical concept that refers to physical data, yes, but space and time are also irreducible primary categories in Aristotelianism and primary perceptual conditions in Kantianism. All of these concepts that entail space and time are what metaphysics is about. Remember that we had metaphysics before we got all the science today. I would argue that metaphysical developments by these philosophers conditioned the perceptions of our scientists and also everyone else. I think Rand makes the argument very clear that philosophy is determined in science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objectivists should be pretty happy about the following:

 

[Eric] Lerner, a plasma physicist, points out flaws in the Big Bang model and proposes an alternative theory: an eternal, self-sustaining "plasma" universe where electromagnetic fields within conducting gases provide other, simpler explanations for observed phenomena.
- Gregg Sapp, Montana State Univ. Libs., Bozeman, about this book from this theory

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To help generate some feisty discussions, I provide you with the following. Keep in mind that it is a philosophical treatment of physics. I am not a scientist, but maybe this will be interesting in a speculative sense. I am open to your ideas. Excuse the complexity: the amount of ideas and integrations contained therein truly boggles my mind. Maybe I can simplify all this with your help in later posts.

So, here is my conversion of the physical theories into Aristotelian logic (as in my Model--I will write about the correlating logical metaphysics later on my blog). Gravity (as all) is partially explained by electromagnetism (as some). This is the explanation provided by the Alfven-Klein model. This matches the Newtonian tradition in physics, as data first, theorization later. On the other hand, electromagnetism is NOT gravity. Einstein, Hawking, Krauss, and the rest of contemporary physicists imply that electromagnetism IS gravity (also see Interstellar (2014) to find out the flawed interpretation of singularity in an overall flawed movie that is currently (since yesterday) the most popular movie.

 

Current popular cosmology is based on mathematical models and does not completely match physical evidence or physical problems (such as baryon asymmetry). The reason for this is the inherent contradiction in the current physics, thanks to the flawed dialectics started by Kant. To say that some is all (and improperly integrate physical evidence--I should say, disintegrate it; see Rand and Peikoff for similar argumentation) necessarily entails going from existence to nonexistence.

 

However, there is one contention that Alfven-Klein model also does not resolve. If physical universe is eternal, then so is the anti-universe. I believe (and support with my Model --level 15), the eternity is merely a constraining factor in analysis. We can always find problems within eternity by conceptualizing it in finite -- and thus also bounded in time -- physical data (and this is perfectly natural). The evidence for cosmic (above black holes) singularities and anti-singularities (as cosmological double layers) that produce all kinds of universes could be inferred from the cold spots.

 

General singularities do not imply the eternal nature of the universe. Instead, they imply the points of annihilation of matter and anti-matter that produces high-energy photons that we cannot see because our minds currently can only perceive up to 7 Hz. CMB can be reinterpreted (as Eric J. Lerner had done), so the conceptions of early (from nonexistence, Krauss's "nothing," Kant's noumenal reality--or really, original photon entanglement on a large spacetime scale rather than the less energetic photons we can sense as quantum fluctuations) and current/future universes (toward existence) can be integrated.

 

All the plasma that we do not see (also could be called aether) is there on the larger cosmological scales. If not particularizing the evidence, such as through the Michelson–Morley experiment, aether may indeed be found. On larger scales, such as magnetosphere and beyond, solar wind may indeed have effect, as predicted by Dayton C. Miller's Ether-drift experiments, and perhaps also this. This is also talked about by one of "cranks" - Nikolai Levashov - in one of his articles, criticizing Einstein. Although Levashov's model of the universe is also strange (it involves seven matters in a heterogeneous mix), it leans more toward the plasma model and against the relativity/quantum model.

 

The other “crank” we’ve talked about earlier, Nassim Haramein, is leaning more toward the relativity/quantum model and is adding some “plasma” (plenum, aether, whatever) to it. Even though the cranks provide no solid answers (or much evidence in consensus--sounds conspiratorial, I know), their ideas provide clues as to how the universe may actually be. What if we put the matter/antimatter into vacuum as plasma model suggests and find it in the singularity as Haramein's theory geometrizes? The esoteric and mainstream do not have to conflict, you know. If the debate of static versus "created" universes is not obvious, esoteric and mainstream are inseparably entangled now.

 

To see more, among the already mentioned, static universe models can be found in (early) Einstein before he “repented,” Erich Regener, Walther Nernst, Fred Hoyle, Louis de Broglie, Max Born, P.A.M. Dirac, Finlay-Freundlich, Nikolai Kozyrev, Jayant Narlikar, Halton Arp, Andre Koch Torres Assis, C. Johan Masreliez, Nikolai A. Zhuck (all from this Russian site). Of course, there are others, but some of them are truly coocoo, such as the author of the site--Ivan Gorelik. Nonetheless, they are very advanced mathematicians and physicists, and we should not simply brush aside their ideas and findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't written in a long while that now I completely agree that there is no spatial void, vacuum, or nothing and that Krauss is trying to limit our knowledge by misnaming dark energy. If there were spatial nothing, then it could be used to interchange any scale and thus contradict the very nature of space and reality. There is indeed no empty space. Thank you once again for helping me in correcting and updaing my Model. I have no more conflict with Objectivism on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't written in a long while that now I completely agree that there is no spatial void, vacuum, or nothing and that Krauss is trying to limit our knowledge by misnaming dark energy. If there were spatial nothing, then it could be used to interchange any scale and thus contradict the very nature of space and reality. There is indeed no empty space. Thank you once again for helping me in correcting and updaing my Model. I have no more conflict with Objectivism on this topic.

'While 'void' is a literary term, 'vacuum' refers to the ground-state of quantum activity moving through space. it's so low as impossible to be measured--hence 'nothing'. It's flux is a mathematical model, much like the occasional liquid 'pop' of sauce within a casserole.

 

Any 'model'--yours or whomever-- has to be supported by data. Read Krauss' book to fish out his.

 

Dark energy is not the Quantum Vacuum as far as far as we can know.

 

Otherwise, yes, QM contradicts Aristotelian and Kantian models of time and space. Please refer to the QM discussion 'reality vs fantasy' for more. 

 

AH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't written in a long while that now I completely agree that there is no spatial void, vacuum, or nothing and that Krauss is trying to limit our knowledge by misnaming dark energy. If there were spatial nothing, then it could be used to interchange any scale and thus contradict the very nature of space and reality. There is indeed no empty space. Thank you once again for helping me in correcting and updaing my Model. I have no more conflict with Objectivism on this topic.

In some conversations that I've had regarding 'spatial void' or 'nothing' have used, and I think correctly, 'vacuum' to facilitate some understanding of what's being discussed. Micheal Miller separates space, void and vacuum - after noting they are quite often used synonymously.

 

After examining 'void' as an epistemological error, he returns to

The solution is to admit--on the warrant of perception--that perceptual gaps exist, and--on the warrant of the axiom of existence--that gaps are not nothing: something exists between perceived entities.

What is it? Void is not an option, and space is no answer. Space is merely our system of reference lines. Our new question is "What is the stuff through which we draw those lines between entities?" This stuff is prior to our lines, prior to space. What's the stuff?

 

Similar to the axiom of existence, he goes on to point out:

The only positive fact we know about our "stuff" is that it exists, and you cannot deduce what a thing is from the premise that it is something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A boson like a photon in my philosophy is considered a synthesis of context and object (i.e., wave)...

 

Here is recent experimental evidence that photon (edit: light, even) is a wave of particles (objects) and energy (contextual quantum vacuum), as I said.

 

1-thefirstever.jpg

Source: http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

 

And as Andie Holland mentioned to me in one closed thread:

You seem to be big on the idea that energy is the basic substance of elementary particles. In this sense, said particles are not so ‘fundamental after all. My reading as a mere amateur fails to find anyproof of your claim.

 

That's too bad, Andie. Because how do we get mass? From massless particles, right? Therefore, massless particles are more fundamental than massive one, as you also said that:

[there is] the Big Bang dispersal of photons, prior to the formation of other elementary particles

 

Please, connect the dots.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×