Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Scientist Lawrence Kraus on Religion and Nothing

Rate this topic


Wotan

Recommended Posts

I am familiar that there are formulas for solving such geometries. Ultimately, they can be reduced back to Euclidean geometry. He does provide a short lead-in to establish the context to distinguish the 180° triangle from the 270° one, but wrapping the paragraph up with the word 'Viola', comes across as somewhat misleading to me then.

"on a curved two-dimensional surface like a globe, you can draw a trangle, the sum of whose angles is far greater than 180°"

You can actually draw what is more properly identified as a spherical triangle.

Relative to a cartesian coordinate system, I can only generate the surface described, three-dimensionally.

Alas, I did anticipate struggles with the precision of the wording in this book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Consolation of Philosophy:

For example, on the nature of science and the scientific method, I have found the insights offered by scientists who have chosen to write concretely about their experience and reflections, from Jacob Bronowski, to Richard Feynman, to Francis Crick, to Werner Heisenberg, Albert Einstein, and Sir James Jeans, to have provided me with a better practical guide than the work of even the most significant philosophical writers of whom I am aware, such as Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.

A case of judging the field of philosophy by its predominate practitioners.

To be fair he continues:

I admit that this could primarily reflect of my own philosophical limitations, but I suspect this experience is more common than not among my scientific colleagues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cosmic Background Radiation.

Ok, so we have instruments which can detect it. It is there. That it is a residue of the Big Bang may substantiate such an event transpired. This comes down to perception vs. what it means. It is herein that lies the gulf. Krauss admits later in the book (I leafed through its entirety, prior to coming back with a more critical read) that he favored one interpretation out of a set of conflicting interpretations, because it was mathematically beautiful. What he relates in the book is the popular interpretations.

Human history has shown selective acceptance of an eternal universe. Today, however, the question seems always posed with the implicit premise that there is a beginning, as if to posit something as eternal is non-sensical, unless perhaps is applied to something outside of existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Consolation of Philosophy

Ah, I take it this comes from here:

http://www.scientifi...ation-of-philos

When I saw the name I thought of Boethius, and that couldn't be right.

BTW, the bit about the "mathematically beautiful" interpretation, that had to do with the shape of the universe. I don't think he used the phrase relative to the Cosmic Background or the Big Bang.

Here's the original lecture, the one with over a million YouTube views, in case anyone hasn't seen it. I know I've posted it before, but it's not yet on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krause is an anti-foundationalist.

I think I know what you mean, but could you please fill in some details of which Krauss statements are behind your conclusion. I ask this not just for my benefit, but the OP and others that browse the forum and read the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure Grames, I was driving before....

Krause:

As a practicing physicist however, the situation is somewhat different. There, I, and most of the colleagues with whom I have discussed this matter, have found that philosophical speculations about physics and the nature of science are not particularly useful, and have had little or no impact upon progress in my field. Even in several areas associated with what one can rightfully call the philosophy of science I have found the reflections of physicists to be more useful

.

First, I am NOT objecting to the idea that "armchair" physicist are wrong. If by "progress in my field" he means a philosopher shouldn't be pontificating about a special science matter without knowledge of the particular matter, Krause is correct. But evidenced by his previous paragraph on what conditions he finds philosophy useful in, it seems he means something else as well, or completely.

That is, he seems to object to the idea that the science of philosophy can limit physics or "the nature of science" in any meaningful way.Now given the philosophers of science he mentions, I'm not surprised he has found little value in POS.

Krause continues:

That question can be phrased as follows: How can a universe full of galaxies and stars, and planets and people, including philosophers, arise naturally from an initial condition in which none of these objects—no particles, no space, and perhaps no time—may have existed? Put more succinctly perhaps: Why is there ‘stuff’, instead of empty space? Why is there space at all? There may be other ontological questions one can imagine but I think these are the ‘miracles’ of creation that are so non-intuitive and remarkable, and they are also the ‘miracles’ that physics has provided new insights about, and spurred by amazing discoveries, has changed the playing field of our knowledge. That we can even have plausible answers to these questions is worth celebrating and sharing more broadly.

This statement expresses the problem. I dont need to know anything about cosmological theories or astrophysics to know the answer to this question. Ontology is a branch of the foundational science of metaphysics.The unfortunate thing is MOST cosmological theory is guided and motivated by unquestioned philosophical premises, dismissed by the current POS as, "just metaphysics", or "psychology".

Krause:

A universe like ours is, in this context, guaranteed to arise dynamically, and we are here because we could not ask the question if our universe weren’t here. It is in this sense that I argued that the seemingly profound question of why there is something rather than nothing might be actually no more profound than asking why some flowers are red or some are blue

Krause is NOT saying that that the universe is eternal, only that it was "guaranteed to arise". Edit added: "because the special science theory says so".

Krause:

To those who wish to impose their definition of reality abstractly, independent of emerging empirical knowledge and the changing questions that go with it, and call that either philosophy or theology, I would say this: Please go on talking to each other, and let the rest of us get on with the goal of learning more about nature.

Again this could be read in a way that would be OK but given the context, Krause seems to be rejecting foundationalism completely. What reality in general means and is, does not change with context.

Edit: This book was recommended by a friend who is a Philosophy Prof..

http://www.amazon.co...35814168&sr=8-1

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Rundle's preface which can be read in Kindle highlights online

"The question, 'Why is there something rather than nothing?', has a strong claim to be philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question. As providing a possible starting point for a proof of the existence of God, its centrality is assured, and it has a capacity to set one's head spinning which few other philosophical problems can rival. The principal answers which it receives are of two kinds.First, as just indicated, we have the theist's response: the existence of anything at all can be explained only if we can suppose that there is a being, God, who exists of necessity and is the source of all being. Second, and ever morecommonly, it is held that physics will provide the answer. Cosmological theories are being continually developed and refined to such a point that we can expect an eventual explanation of why our universe exists, and hence of the more general fact that something exists, to arise out of such a theory Both these responses are problematic. Our remarkable success in devising scientific explanations, in resolving what have initially appeared impenetrable mysteries, may make for a presumption that favours the naturalistic alternative, but there are many, scientists as well as non-scientists, who believe that we must look beyond science if we are to find a final explanation. The province of cosmology is nothing short of the whole universe, but it is difficult to see how enlightenment might be found within that province. One way or another, the existence of something seems always to be presupposed. On the other hand, if the origins of what is of concern to cosmology are not a question for cosmology itself, it is not dear that theology can fare any better, given the problems associated with the very concept of God. The universe does not appear to be self-explanatory, but it has yet to be made clear how a genuine explanation could be given by invoking a being outside space and time, as God is customarily conceived to be.

In the face of the difficulties presented by these two solutions, we may be drawn to a reluctant acceptance that the existence at which we marvel is just a matter of brute, inexplicable, fact. Reluctant, since as a response that disowns rather than offers the possibilityof enlightenment, this is not a happy resting place. However, while it may be difficult to see where else to turn, there is a further possibility. Neither of the answers touched upon gives what might be considered a typically philosophical solution, a solution which proceeds by showing that the troublesome questions rest on mistaken assumptions. A distinctive feature of philosophical questions lies in the way they transform under scrutiny, giving way, as the nature of the issue becomes clearer, to a series of sub-questions often not obviously related to the original query. This is one reason why, to the beginner in the subject, much philosophy is found baffling; to someone ignorant of the history of the problem, it is not evident why the issues being addressed are felt to be relevant, let alone important. This development often has, in addition, a deflationary aspect: the initial question is superseded by those that follow because it is revealed to harbour a misconception. If, for instance, the mind-body problem is conceived of as a problem of understanding how two kinds of `stuff', the mental and the physical, can interact, it is not going to meet with an answer which does not fault the formulation. Likewise in the present instance: if there is something improper about assumptions behind our seemingly unanswerable questions, if what is perceived as an intractable problem is no more than a confusion, then a resolution may take the form of an exposition of the misconceptions, a rejection of the questions, and a consequent dispelling of our perplexity. This, I suggest, is what we meet with at More generally, it is suggested that when talking about the universe we get into difficulties not altogether dissimilar from those encountered in talking about God. In either case, the concepts we invoke have a clear application within the universe, but they break down when extrapolated either to a supposedly transcendent being or to the universe itself. However, while it is seemingly inconceivable that there should have been nothing at all, it is far from clear why there is what there is. Our response is to argue that if there is anything at all, there must be matter; nothing else has the kind of existential independence required. The domain of the immaterial offers us, principally, the abstract and the mental. We do not have to rejecteither category but, if neither enjoys an independent existence, matter remains unchallenged. But even if matter can be assured, we are still left wondering why the universe is, more specifically, as it is. It is at this point that most of the issues pass from philosophy to physics, but certain questions, such as those concerning the way in which explanations may come to an end and the possibility that the universe has existed for an infinite time, have sufficient philosophical content to fall within the scope of our investigation."

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I take it this comes from here:

http://www.scientifi...ation-of-philos

When I saw the name I thought of Boethius, and that couldn't be right.

BTW, the bit about the "mathematically beautiful" interpretation, that had to do with the shape of the universe. I don't think he used the phrase relative to the Cosmic Background or the Big Bang.

Yes it did. I should have quoted and cropped the post from TheEgoist I had pursued those thoughts along.

The "mathematically beautiful" came from later in the book, and dealt with the (flat) shape of the universe. In the opening of chapter 6 he referred to the universe as being flat as 'a guess that turned out to be correct' (paraphrased).

The material, difficult enough too wrap ones layman's mind around, has not been made any easier so far by the organization and presentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure Grames, I was driving before....

Krause:

First, I am NOT objecting to the idea that "armchair" physicist are wrong. If by "progress in my field" he means a philosopher shouldn't be pontificating about a special science matter without knowledge of the particular matter, Krause is correct. But evidenced by his previous paragraph on what conditions he finds philosophy useful in, it seems he means something else as well, or completely.

That is, he seems to object to the idea that the science of philosophy can limit physics or "the nature of science" in any meaningful way.Now given the philosophers of science he mentions, I'm not surprised he has found little value in POS.

It makes all the difference who Krauss takes himself to be arguing against. Non-Objectivist Philosophers themselves do not take philosophy to be a science so why should they claim a special status?

This statement expresses the problem. I dont need to know anything about cosmological theories or astrophysics to know the answer to this question. Ontology is a branch of the foundational science of metaphysics.The unfortunate thing is MOST cosmological theory is guided and motivated by unquestioned philosophical premises, dismissed by the current POS as, "just metaphysics", or "psychology".

I think it is most helpful to have empirical evidence that what was formerly considered nothing (empty space) is actually something that must be counted as integral to existence. It is helpful as an avenue leading to the full plenum theory of metaphysics which is otherwise an exercise in pure deduction, and so inaccessible to some mentalities. Peikoff has described the atomic theory of Democritus as an exercise in rationalism (to contemporaneous Greeks) in his course on induction, which surprised me because Democritus argument (or at least one of them) was geometric and the evidence was visible and tactile (considering whether for a round fruit cut into two parts do the newly exposed surfaces have the same area or do they differ). Different folks, different strokes...

Rand refrained from getting into ontology beyond "existence exists", existents and entities.

Krause:

Krause is NOT saying that that the universe is eternal, only that it was "guaranteed to arise". Edit added: "because the special science theory says so".

True, Krauss is not an Objectivist or much of a philosopher. At least he is not contradicting my preferred philosophy.

Krause:

Again this could be read in a way that would be OK but given the context, Krause seems to be rejecting foundationalism completely. What reality in general means and is, does not change with context.

Given a starting point in theology or a philosophy of nothingness, there is no way to get to the current science and so no foundational relationship. That particular foundation is what he is arguing against so take that into account. I will not take him to be attacking Objectivism as he almost certainly does not know about the metaphysics of Ayn Rand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

On page 263, in the last full paragraph, responding to possibilities one should consider from the paragraph before (and I would have to add from earlier portions of the book as well) Krauss iterates the following:

These are open questions. However, unless one can come up with a good reason for excluding such configurations from the quantum mechanical sum that determines the properties of the evolving universe, and to date no such good reason exists that I know of, then under the general principle that holds everywhere else I know of in nature - namely that anything that is not proscribed by the laws of physics must actually happen - it seems most reasonable to consider these possibilities.

This captures the crux of what is wrong with aspects of science today. Unless one can come up with a good reason for excluding a postulated possibility, then it seems most reasonable to consider these possibilities.

If anything, this lays the groundwork for why distinguishing between hypothesis and theory is crucial in science. Hypothesis is the arena where possibilities are examined for contradictions with all other known facts. Hypothesis is the arena where good reasons are validated and used to move the hypothesis into theory.

Expecting a good reason to excluding a postulated possibility is tantamount to being expected to prove a negative. Show me that such and such does not exist. At the beginning of chapter 9, Krauss identifies Newton as perhaps the greatest physicist of all time. He points out that "the most important contribution he made was to demonstrate the possibility that the entire universe is explicable." Newton did not try to prove that the other possibilities should be excluded,rather he demonstrated his possibility by demonstrating how it connected back, step by step, to the relevant observations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...