Home
» Cosmology, News » From The The Best Schools: “What part of nothing don’t you understand, Dr. Krauss?”
From The The Best Schools: “What part of nothing don’t you understand, Dr. Krauss?”
| February 25, 2012 | Posted by News under Cosmology, News |
Here, on materialist physicist Larry Krauss.
“In modern parlance—following Leibniz’s lead—the problem of the mystery of existence is most often expressed by means of the formula: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” This phrase also forms the subtitle to Krauss’s book.
Put like that, the idea does not seem so difficult to grasp. In fact, it can be reduced to three little words:
Why not nothing?
Nevertheless, Krauss doesn’t get it. He titles one of his chapters “Nothing is something.” What does he mean by this? More.
28 Responses to From The The Best Schools: “What part of nothing don’t you understand, Dr. Krauss?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The infamous Krauss striptease for Craig, where he revealed underneath it all he believes that 2+2=5 is as revealing to his lack of a coherent logical basis as the fact, you have pointed out here News, that he really believes “Nothing is something.”
How do debate someone for whom logic is merely moldable playdoh? that is forever plastic that can be adjusted to whatever whim of belief they want to hold beforehand. As Mr. Arrington pointed out recently in cleaning house, it is fruitless to constantly debate someone who refuses to accept basic foundational precepts of logic.
Anyone seen this discussion between Krauss and Dawkins?
The fun begins at 45:50
What I see is a man who is desperately seeking for answers, but ones that fall within only a limited, selective framework; and so almost pleads that we bend logic, just this once, just a little, to accomodate a reality that excludes the supernatural.
It really is sad when you see two clearly intellectual men, that are so utterly locked into a restricted set of boundaries that they will willingly appeal to faulty logic just to accommodate their position.
OT: BA77, what code do you use to embed a video in the post?
You’re always one step ahead of the rest of us..
Stu7,
I just post the link address. I don’t even know how to do the ‘fancy’ embed for videos that you guys do. LOL,,,
And Yes, you can tell that Krauss is definitely fighting his own ability to reason. Trying his best to convince himself that ‘Nothing is Something’ is even a logically coherent statement to begin with.
A comment or two on his assertion that photons can pop into being from ‘nothing’. Quantum mechanics, actually quantum teleportation, has shown us that photons can be reduced to ‘infinite information’;
It should be noted in the preceding paper that Duwell, though he never challenges the mathematical definition of a photon qubit as infinite information, tries to refute Bennett’s interpretation of infinite information transfer in teleportation because of what he believes are ‘time constraints’ which would prohibit teleporting ‘backwards in time’. Yet Duwell fails to realize that information is its own completely unique transcendent entity, which is completely independent, even dominate, of any energy-matter, space-time, constraints in the first place.
This following recent experiment blew a hole in Duwell’s objection to Bennett, of teleporting infinite information ‘backwards in time’, simply because he believed there was no such path, or mechanism, to do so:
Moreover this following experiment added to the proof that Quantum information is now shown to be ‘conserved’, thus blowing another major hole in Duwell’s objection:
Another objection to Krauss’s contention that photons can pop into being out of nothing for ‘no reason at all’ is the fact that there is now actually reason to believe there actually is a very important reason for why photons pop into and out of being:
i.e. it seems even the ‘exotic’ virtual photons, which fleetingly pop into and out of existence, are tied directly to the anthropic principle through the 1 in 10^120 cosmological constant for dark energy:
Further note:
BA77 is there any way to break this down for us laymen? From my understanding of this is that protons don’t just pop out of nothingness but are in different phases of existence?
Fascinating stuff
opps I meant virtual protons
Wallstreeter, I am a layman myself. ,,, But I just listed the experimental evidence, that is readily available on the internet for anyone to use, showing that ‘photons’, (not protons), do not pop into being from nothing, as was Krauss’s contention in the video, but that photons are actually reducible to infinite information. Photons being reducible to infinite information gives even a layman like me a solid clue as to where photons come from in the first place. And the clue is surely not ‘nothingness’ as Krauss would like to maintain!
Here are a couple more links related to the preceding:
It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?
The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity’, (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity’, to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:
Verse and Music:
“Photons being reducible to infinite information gives even a layman like me a solid clue as to where photons come from in the first place. And the clue is surely not ‘nothingness’ as Krauss would like to maintain!”
Krauss et al. evidently can’t handle facing the reality that the reference-frame of our world of space-time is subordinated to the absolute reference-frame of light.
They remind me of the quip of American comedienne, Lily Tomlin: ‘Reality is only a crutch for people who can’t cope with drugs.’ We should call them, ‘stuff junkies’ – ‘stuff’ being their undesigned universe, of course.
bornagain77, I believe that the term, ‘infinity’, has some strange connotations in physics, and you are wont to bandy it about like so much confetti; but would not your statement above validate my contention that physical light and spiritual light form a continuum?
First to the ‘confetti’ statement:
Actually when I reference the fact that a photon is reducible to infinite information I am not ‘bandying’ it about, but I have a fairly good, but ‘rough’, idea as to exactly what that would entail:
This following video is very interesting for revealing how difficult it was for mathematicians to actually ‘prove’ that mathematics was even true in the first place:
Godel’s and his incompleteness theorem can be picked up here in part 7 of the preceding video:
As you can see, somewhat from the preceding video, mathematics cannot be held to be ‘true’ unless an assumption for a highest transcendent infinity is held to be true. A highest infinity which Cantor, and even Godel, held to be God. Thus this following formal proof, which was referred to at the end of the preceding video, shows that math cannot be held to be consistently true unless the highest infinity of God is held to be consistently true as a starting assumption:
I love this following quote by Godel. Godel, who proved you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring completeness to the ‘Theory of Everything’, also had this to say about God:
Footnote as to God, as a man, bringing completeness to the ‘theory of everything’:
As well to your leaning towards physical light and spiritual light forming a continuum, although there are many parallels between the overriding characteristics of ‘spiritual light’ and that of ‘physical light’,,,
,,,There is a very important distinction between ‘physical light’ and the ‘higher dimensional’ ‘spiritual light’ (besides the common distinction that people have equating ‘spiritual light’ to meaning ‘gaining deep understanding’). The following quote on the Shroud of Turin draws out one such distinction.
,,,If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural, ‘spiritual’, light which made the “3D – photographic negative” image on the Shroud I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE’s) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright ‘Light’ or ‘Being of Light’ who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of ‘The Being of Light’ while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the ‘The Being of Light’ they were in the presence of is none other than ‘The Lord God Almighty’ of heaven and earth.
Thanks for your response and the links, bornagain77, though I have in mind the Cosmic Christ as referred to in this video of an interview with Fr Richard Rohr, a Franciscan friar.
We may still be at odds over it, but as I can’t imagine you getting this wrong, if we still differ, I’ll take it that we are talking past or over each other; not really sharing the same topic!!!
I see such a ‘spiritual light-physical light’ continuum, with its defining poles corresponding with a ‘faith-knowledge continuum’, in turn, corresponding with those of the time-space continuum.
As matter of fact, regarding faith-knowledge, I shouldn’t be at all surprised if everyone who has ever been acquainted with Christianity knows it to be true; but other factors make it unpalatable to some. Certainly many do know for sure, and I expect, like the extreme examples of the Apostles, are required to bear heavier crosses – while given extra strength to endure them with grace and equanimity.
Oddly, and I speak as a former rabid, adolescent agnostic, for some reason, in that mindset, we are wont to feel that by withholding our assent, we are ‘teaching God a lesson!’
With a clearer mind, we would know that it was not God but his Church, his adult representatives we have it in for. And abjuring the former, because of the latter is not strictly logical. At least, we discover that, when we have to deal with the adult world as adults, and, with a little uncomfortable help fron God, to our astonishment find we are not such virtuous hot-shots, ourselves.
As someone told a friend of mine, when anyone goes on about the churches being full of hypocrites, tell them that, if they ever come across a church that isn’t full of them, whatever he does, not to join it, as he would surely spoil it.
I meant to include the video link. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LYQQO5uFtA
Another important distinction to make between higher dimensional ‘spiritual light’, and physical light, is that when we sunbath, or such as that, though we receive a good feeling of warmth from the sun, we are not, nor have I ever anybody claim to being, in the presence of God. In fact there is also an interesting fact to point out that we do not receive our nourishment/energy directly from the sun, but we must receive our nourishment/energy indirectly, in a indirect route, by the photosynthesis of plants. And, interestingly, photosynthesis can rightly be thought of as a ‘miraculous’ process in its own right:
Another interesting thing to point out, besides this disconnect between sunlight and our ability to get nourishment/energy directly from sunlight as plants do, is that there is a very different kind of light, than sunlight, operating, on a massive scale and in a different way than sunlight, within each of our bodies;
Of Note from Near Death Experiences, is the fact that eating food is not necessary to maintain the health of your spiritual body:
Verses and Music:
If photons are eternal, Bornagain, does that not suggest that like Christ they are an interface with the godhead – of which he is, himself a part!
Surely, only God can be eternal, and is so, both in his own person and in his Mystical Body, his adoptive sons and daughters.
Re our resurrected bodies, the Catholic church teaches that, at minimum, our bodies will be like Christ’s resurrected body, as we can extrapolate from the Gospels, i.e. able to walk through locked doors, well, not subject to the physcical limitations of our current nature.
And yes, Christ ate food to prove to his disciples that he was not a mere ghost; but is that not we would expect? Would we imagine that in heaven our bodies would rely on food? Indian holy men and, I believe, some Christian saints have gone for very long periods without food, pesumably eve water, without which we are suppose to expire within, is it, four or five days?
Also, Christ, himself, true God and true man, fasted in the wilderness for forty days and forty nights – though I believe that number is said to be figurative, meaning a long time, as also the forty years the Hebrew people lived in the wilderness under Moses leadership.
In any case, though true man, I think Jesus must have had a very strong constitution, as although it was thought remarkable that he died after ‘only’ three hours on the cross, in view of the stresses he effectively put himself under throughout just the three years or so of his ministry, the wonder, to me, is that he didn’t die of a heart attack within a very short period of being crucified, if not before.
Like you I can’t see enough of those NDEs. One I found particularly fascinating was written by a youngish man, who in his youth, had accidentally overdosed on some hallucinogenic drug in a lavatory cubicle at a rave, and having passed out, had a ‘near death’ experience. But such testimonies you have to read, yourself, to sense the utter authenticity of them. Unfortunately, the person who ran the thread lost interest in it eventually, and I’ve not been able to find it, such as it was up to that point.
Have you had mystical experiences that might be compared to the kind of theophanies that some hallucinogenic drugs are said to engender? I don’t doubt that there is a connection? Except that the former will come at a heavy price. St Paul of the Cross eventually begged God not to visit him with mystical experiences for that reason.
Axel, as I have maintained in my posts thus far, I find the greatest strength to establishing, scientifically, the relationship of God/Christ to light, both spiritual and physical, and our relationship to that light, both physical and spiritual, to be best shown by heavy emphasis on empirical evidence first, backed up by religious/spiritual experience second. As far as hallucinogenic drugs, I do not doubt that people have had profound spiritual experiences while on them, and I have heard a few such experiences first hand, but I’ve also heard some extremely strange experiences from people using hallucinogenic drugs that can only be described as nothing more than deep fantasy of the person. Thus that renders those experiences void of any practical apologetic purpose save for the person who had the experience. My own personal ‘spiritual/mystical’ experiences are by comparison to some of the ‘wild’ stories I’ve heard from hallucinogenic experiences, is far more modest in that Christ, in His love, was there for me in a tangible, very real, way at a very low point in my life. I did not see visions, nor did I hear choirs of angels singing. I was merely a sinner touched by a small measure of grace.
“backed up by religious/spiritual experience second.”
Why the need for that at all? It preceded your scientific studies on a subliminal level, anyway.
Anyway, nobody has an advanatage over anyone else in that regard, mystics only have intimations we shall all have on the full scale when we die.
I understand the worth of your concentrating on empirical science, the absolute need for it, particularly since it is so lacking in our adversaries. I tend to ramble more, so remaining a bit more focused on here wouldn’t harm me, I expect.
Did you get my point, thouhg, about photons being eternal and the seeming significance of it with regard to the Cosmic Christ? Or would a dignified silence be kinder to me?
Axel, of course I see the connection of ‘eternal’ photons to God;
I merely pointed out a few important distinctions, in the corresponding characteristics of light and God, that are missed if one stops at merely the ‘eternal’ point of drawing a connection between ‘physical’ light and God:
Pam Reynold’s who has had perhaps the most monitored Near Death Experience to date of anyone, makes a very interesting ,and somewhat controversial, statement in regards to the connection between God and light in this following video:
Axel, Here is a ‘serendipitous’ scripture I just ‘stumbled across’ that goes very well with post 13:
Bear in mind, bornagain77, I was speaking about a spiritual(divine) light – physical light continuum, i.e. light as an interface with both the spiritual reality and the physical reality, as per the Incarnation: “the true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world”
In another connection, as regards evolution, this site has been a revelation to me, as I’d never thought the question of any significance, my fall-back position being the orthodox Catholic one, i.e. whatever the case, a human soul would have been inserted at some point for the creation of man. Now, it’s clear to me that the evolutionists are all unconscionable fantasists.
However, until the primacy of the mind is universally acknowledged as pivotal in empirical science, even the total dubiety of evolution strikes me as of relatively little consequence. Although, as long as materialists try to push it at the expense of ID and Creation, it will need to be roundly pilloried for its riotously imaginative and specious origins.
However, when the fundamental role of the mind IS eventually acknowledged, the point raised by Max Planck, to the effect that the laws of nature are not bound to continue to act in the same way from one moment to the next, never mind one aeon to the next, must surely throw our knowledge of pre-history from an empirical standpoint into a great deal of uncertainty. So much for the fabled ‘promissory note’.
We should probably, in any case, I imagine, find that respect for the version of prehistory as set forth in the Old Testament, some of it, presumably, metaphorical, as the surest source of knowledge on the subject available to us, whatever our shortcomings in interpreting it.
Planck was raised a Lutheran and seemed to lapse into deism, but some of his reported comments towards the end of his life – as was the case with Einstein – show a quite bitter antagonism towards atheism and its all too lamentable prevalence; and a converse esteem for Judaeo-Christianity as the bedrock of moral order for mankind.
Re your quote from Psalm 61, my version reads:
“Indeed you love truth in the heart;
then in the secret of my heart teach me wisdom.”
You can see that Solomon was to be a ‘chip off the old block’, asking for wisdom, can’t you?
Axel you may appreciate this cool quote I just ‘stumbled’ across:
to reiterate: the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:
Axel you may appreciate this. This fairly old site points out this mysterious fact;
Whereas this recently updated site,,,
points out that the smallest thing visible to the human eye is at 10^-4 meters, which is the directly in the center of all possible sizes of reality (Not ‘nearly’ in the center!). i.e. 10^-4 is right in the middle of 10^-35 meters and 10^27 meters respectively. Now this is a very interesting coincidence considering that conscious observation is now found to be central to reality itself by breakthroughs in Quantum Mechanics. As pointed out yesterday
And all the preceding combined (Quantum Mechanics and the interactive scale) goes very well with the following;
Pretty neat huh Axel?
Verse and Music:
A few related notes Axel:
Astrophysicist Hugh Ross points out that if we lived much later in the universe’s history we would not be able to see the Cosmic Backround Radiation left over from the creation event of the Big Bang:
But why did God create such a massively expansive universe? It turns out there is a very good reason and purpose for why the universe is so massive (Besides just giving us a glimpse at how powerful God is)
As well, Dr. Ross points out that the extremely long amount of time it took to prepare a suitable place for humans to exist in this universe, for the relatively short period of time that we can exist on this planet, is actually a point of evidence that argues strongly for Theism:
Here is a very fitting song that ‘serendipitously’ just came up that goes very well with the preceding comment;
Thanks for all of that fascinating material, bornagain.
I think that, in our meditations on controversial issues, we are wont to factor into the picture the context of the other party to the discussion, as a result of something the person says that strikes us as particularly notable. What it tells us about their level of understanding of the issue – not necessarily quantifiable in terms of academic intelligence.
I remember being struck very forcibly by the comment of someone precisely to the effect you relate above:
“Isn’t the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe?”
My immediate thought was, no. You don’t know him. That is just the kind of thing he WOULD be likely to do. As well as illustrating in another way the infinity of his love for us that he demonstrated on Calvary, imo, he has a quirky sense of humour. Well, ‘nerdy’ is the word I sometimes use when I bring the matter up with him in jest! Usually, when he causes crazy coincidences for my wife and I to chuckle over. He’s really reassuring us of his support, together with a bit of humour, but I still pull his leg.
Physical size means zilch to him. He created the whole universe just by thinking about it, and he could annihilate it simply by losing interest in it. Or shrink it to the size of an atom, if he felt so disposed. Though presumably he’d have to change the laws of physics, in view of the import of your explanations and the links you provided above!
Axel:
bornagain, I don’t know if you’ve heard it, but there is a Kabbalist saying to the effect that when a man dies, a whole world disappears with him.
It seems the Multiversers and M-Stringers don’t understand that, because the wise discoverers and developes of quantum physics revolutionised physics by routinely accepting and incorporating counter-rational concepts into their view of the world, that does not mean that scientists now have “carte blanche” to indulge in counter-rational flights of fancy, at will – at all; unlike Einstein, they denature science and its methodology, instead of pursuing it, and creating oxymorons, instead of discovering paradoxes.
You wonder if there has been a group, nervous breakdown by the scientific estabishment; a mental breakdown of some kind, in the face of the growing wall of mystery it faces.
No wonder they are in no state to understand that the logically-binding evidence for theism (which you have so copiously articulated) is now established, and that the findings of the Italian team of physisicts concerning the Shroud of Turin point unambiguously to Christianity as the keystone of the theistic arch. QED.
The routine use of the term, ‘counter-intuitive’, by all scientists, it seems, in place of the term, ‘counter-rational’, provides their cover for all that folly.
‘Counter-intuitive’ has the distinct meaning that you have the feeling that something isn’t right; ‘counter-rational’ that it clearly defies logic. But then, they would have to acknowledge the sorry limit to the scope of their analytical intelligence, since the genuine paradoxes of physics have been proven to be true.
Did I spot Goldman Sachs signatures on that promissory note? Or were they Worldcom? Or Enron?