Lawrence Krauss - "A Universe From Nothing" interviewed on NPR's Science Friday today

[cbayer]

Absolutely fascinating. (Posting here because he discusses how his ideas are related to ideas about god).

http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201201132

"Why is there something rather than nothing? That’s the question cosmologist Lawrence Krauss tackles in his new book, A Universe from Nothing. In it, he surveys the discoveries that have led to scientists’ current understanding of the universe, and explores what the future of the universe may be."

[humblebum]

1. All one needs to do in order to prove that the Universe came from nothing

is to change the definition of nothing into a something. Amazing how that works.

[cleanhippie]

4. Are you familiar with changing definitions to suit ones agenda?

[tama]

13. Well

in fact you need a whole lotta very deep math for a TOE that is consistent with empiricism and founded on the philosophical concept of zero energy ontology.

[MarkCharles]

2. And did you notice that his ideas comply with Hawking?

Did you read the Hawking book, (which basically talked about the same phenomena a year or so ago)?

"Stephen Hawking: God didn't create universe


September 02, 2010|By Richard Allen Greene, CNN


Stephen Hawking argues that it's unremarkable that at least one planet has conditions for life.
God did not create the universe, world-famous physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book that aims to banish a divine creator from physics.

Hawking says in his book "The Grand Design" that, given the existence of gravity, "the universe can and will create itself from nothing," according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," he writes in the excerpt."

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-02/world/hawking.god.universe_1_universe-abrahamic-faiths-divine-creator?_s=PM:WORLD

[cbayer]

3. No, I haven't read any books by Hawking except A Brief History of Time

I have seen a number of his talks and interviews. He is very interesting to me.

They are both cosmologists and great minds.

[humblebum]

7. I believe it is in 'A Brief History of Time' that Hawking defines himself as a positivist

and claims that actually knowing what occurred before the Big Bang is impossible to know. My how times change.

[humblebum]

8. I was mistaken. It was "The Universe in a Nutshell" where he made the claim.nt

[cbayer]

9. I haven't read this one. Weighty tomes give me a headache these days, lol!

[MarkCharles]

11. So claims by any and all religions would fall into that "impossible to know" category?

Except, of course, for those "other ways of knowing"?

You realize, therefore, Hawkins was saying there is no possibility that a religion can "know" anything, right?

[humblebum]

12. I cannot speak for every religion, but absolute, objective, empirical proof can not

be claimed by Christianity. As far as "other ways of knowing" - they exist whether or not you accept them, and I certainly don't intend to start up that discussion again. IOW, yes, I do realize that "Hawkins was saying there is no possibility that a religion can "know" anything, right?" - when "knowing" is defined by empirical proof.

[immoderate]

5. Here's the original lecture on which the book is based.

With intro by Richard Dawkins. (Over an hour, but very informative and entertaining. Dawkins calls Krauss "the Woody Allen of cosmology.&quot

--imm

[cbayer]

6. Thanks. I am going to see if there is someway to stream it to my TV.

His interview today was really good.

[MarkCharles]

10. I KNEW I had seen these thoughts on Youtube before this week.

Yes, this is what most people who are "amateur cosmologists" would look at and marvel at.

[rug]

14. Does he mention the Higgs boson?

[cbayer]

15. He does, but only in passing.

[darkstar3]

16. Lawrence and others need to learn that you can't answer this question from that direction.

Science has only one way to approach this question: backward through our timeline. We can't simply ask "why is there a universe?" We're not remotely ready for that question yet. We have to ask and answer a near eternity of questions before that.

[MarkCharles]

17. Who sets the rules for what questions we can ask?

Really? Is it a religion?

[darkstar3]

18. It's not about rules, it's about the processes of learning and development.

A second grader can't do calculus. That's not because there are rules about what that second-grader can or cannot attempt, but rather the simple fact that he/she just isn't ready yet. There are many topics this child must tackle before being ready to take on calculus. In a similar vein, there are many topics that we must tackle before we are ready to take on the beginning of the universe and the reasons, if any, for its existence.

It really is OK not to know, as long as we continue the approach. In fact, I think it best that we say we don't know about the origins of the universe, rather than assume something and use it as top down solution to all of the hard questions we aren't ready to answer right now.

[MarkCharles]

19. Who decides who can do what? YOU?

Because YOU have a brain that cannot answer questions like that, so no one else can try to answer?

You are presuming your intelligence is, in some way, comparable to the brightest minds who have been asking and positing answers to these questions since the Stonehenge, the Pyramids, Theotihuacan, etc.

Did you build them, or veto their building because they were not possible?

Your assumptions are rather cavalier, and arrogant, considering we can tell that a second grader doesn't usually learn concepts of calculus but that doesn't preclude all second-graders from striving to attempt that, if they so choose. See how your premise is flawed?

[darkstar3]

20. You think a second grader can learn calculus, and you think MY premise is flawed?

Development and learning follow a progression. This is documented psychology, and it's something we must continue if we expect to find real answers.

BTW, Mr. Hyde, have you seen Dr. Jekyll?

[MarkCharles]

21. You used an outrageous, but not impossible premise

Either you wish to defend your argument as to which adult mind is restricted from asking which questions or you really should review the course of human history before you post again.

There are NO RULES as to what levels of thought our brains can get to. And YES! Surprisingly, there have been examples of children of 8 or 10 understanding the basis of the Calculus, without a teacher!!!

Try figuring out what your argument is, that ALL children are NOT like adults in reasoning capacity, or that we must treat all adults as if they were typical children. Either of those is a losing argument.

[darkstar3]

24. My argument is simple, and far easier to defend than whatever the hell you're on about.

Science may one day discover why there is something rather than nothing, but there will be a long process of scientific progress that gets followed before that happens, and people who sit and pontificate about it beforehand are trying to fly before they can stand.

And let me be clear, I'm not down on the potential of the human mind. I'm simply a realist.

[MarkCharles]

22. Oh how I LOVE those that quote the known universe to predict ..

the unknown, and to make rules that must be unchallenged, I love people who openly display their disregard of science and the scientific model so blatantly.

For those of you who want to know the scientific model in more depth, let us remember that even Newton's gravitational theories are open to speculation and falsification, even now.

[darkstar3]

26. I think you'll be needing this:

[cbayer]

23. I think he forgot that you are on the same *team*

[darkstar3]

25. To be frank, I've had my doubts from the beginning.

[MarkCharles]

27. Which team are U on?

The one that sets the rules for debate? The one that limits the questions to ones you are comfortable with?
I am on the team of the people who built the Stonehenge, or the Pyramids, or whatever that wasn't expected, but got done by the scientific and mathematical method.

You are on WHICH other team?

[darkstar3]

28. See #26.

Also, have a coke and a smile...

[MarkCharles]

29. I really HATE how people direct me to post numbers that might not line up

with their post numbers, Just F*in quote the poster and the post!!!



Numbers are so silly and so cowardly.

[darkstar3]

30. Dude, calm yourself.

[Starboard Tack]

33. You set the rules for what questions you ask

Remember, the questions you ask are based on the answers you want. If you ask "why" then you are looking for a reason. If there is no reason, then you asked the wrong question.
If you ask "how", "where" and "when" you might get some useful answers.

[tama]

32. IMHO

science (as an ideal) is not dependent from the current notions of causal metaphysics - that Hume, a philosophical father of empiricism, could not find reason to believe in during his philosophical contemplations. But for to think about other alternatives and to be skeptical of causal presumptions of scientific theories, one needs philosophical attitude.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

34. I have always found the normal way we approach that quesiton puzzling.

When we ask, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" we are placing "nothing" as the normal state of existence and forcing "something" to require an explanation. That is, we assume that it is normal for "nothing" to exist. But we could as easily assume that it is normal for "Something" to exist - that would certainly be consistent with observation.

Of course, that doesn't mean there are no questions. I just think the normal way we ask the questions is backwards.

[laconicsax]

35. That's an interesting take.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

36. It has always bothered me.

When these discussions arise, we seem to regard the occurrence of the Big Bang as troublesome. It's almost as though the occurrence of the Big Bang is the opposite of what we would expect to occur, and requires an explanation for that reason. But what about our knowledge regarding the Universe outside of ("prior to&quot the existence of time and space dictates that time and space should never come to be?

I understand why cosmologists must ask questions about that "time" "prior" to the Big Bang (because science, that's why,) but I do not understand why it is considered a theological question. Why the sun rises and falls used to be a theological question because we thought it could tell us something about god. "God wants to heat and light the day;" "God wants to make our crops grow in the summer;" "God wants us to revere his bounty and beneficence;" "God struggles with some force of darkness each night." These were theological teachings that had very much to do with the question of where the sun goes at night. Now, of course, we know that this question has only to do with gravity and angular momentum, and generally speaking can't really tell us anything about god.

The same thing is occurring when we say that the existence of time and space must tell us something about god. We really don't know the answer to that question, but a good number of people are just sure that it has something to do with god. It is a miracle, we are told, because "something cannot come from nothing." But there is a problem with that assessment: no human has ever observed empirically how the universe acts when it lacks spacial and temporal dimensions. It is just assumed that "nothing" cannot become "something;" it can only remain "nothing." But we don't know that. It is entirely possible that it is the natural state of "nothing" to become "something." It is premature to make theological pronouncements based on that maxim when in truth we just don't know.