Sunday, July 30, 2017

Quantum Particles Do Not Prove Universe from Nothing

Image result for metacrock's blog quantum particles




In light of of Naturalist arguments, are predicated: that QM particles prove something can pop up out of nothing with no cause. Quantum theory seems to confirm the notion that it is possible for the universe to begin with no cause. In terms of the TS argument that would mean that no organizing principle is necessary to explain order.

The second contender for a theory of initial conditions is quantum cosmology, the application of quantum theory to the entire Universe. At first this sounds absurd because typically large systems (such as the Universe) obey classical, not quantum, laws. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a classical theory that accurately describes the evolution of the Universe from the first fraction of a second of its existence to now. However it is known that general relativity is inconsistent with the principles of quantum theory and is therefore not an appropriate description of physical processes that occur at very small length scales or over very short times. To describe such processes one requires a theory of quantum gravity. [1]

This statement is more admission than documentation. It admits that quantum theory might not pertain to the universe as a whole. After all the theory has only been validated under normal conditions of space/time, temperature and the like. We have no idea if it still applies at the big bang expansion where the laws of physics seem to be suspended, temperature and time approach infinity. “What we do know is that massive objects do not exhibit quantum behavior. No one can be sure that a new-born universe would obey quantum theory as we know it..”[2]Moreover the statement admits that the theory requires a theory of quantum gravity in order to apply as a theory of origins. Do we have a theory of quantum gravity that has been validated empirically?

Lawrence Krauss in his book, A Universe from Nothing, [3] argues that quantum theory means that the universe came from nothing based upon the assumption that quantum particles do the same. Krauss argues that the eternal laws of Quantum mechanics produce particles out of nothing when the instability of vacuum states causes quantum fields to shift and produce different kinds of particles. [4] This seems like scientific proof but all it really says is that nothing became unstable and turned into something, no thought as to how that could be. There's a deeper trick, however, in that the terms don't really mean what they seem to mean. David Albert (a Philosopher with Ph.D. in physics) exposed the meaning of terms and exploded the whole project.


Albert first points out that tracing the universe back to some physical property or cause is not an explanation as to why there is something rather than nothing.


What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like?[5]

Secondly, he points out that going back to the enlightenment, science has always assumed that at the “bottom of everything” there is “some basic, elementary, eternally persisting, concrete, physical stuff.” [6] Newton had it that this “stuff” consisted of particles. At the end of the nineteenth century it was particles and electro-magnetic fields. Albert argues that since that time all of physics is basically about “how that elementary stuff is arranged.”[7] The laws don’t tell us where the elementary “stuff” came from, not even laws of quantum mechanics. The laws do not tell us where the fields came from, let alone where the “laws” themselves came from. Moreover, contrary to all previous theories, quantum theory particles are understood as arrangements of fields. Some arrangements correspond to certain numbers and kinds of particles, some correspond to no particles.[8] This latter arrangement, Albert tells us, is what they call “vacuum states.” According to Albert, Krauss is arguing that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories “entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.”[9]


There is no explanation here. No hint as to how nothing could become something. If nothing comes out of some prior condition we don't know. Krauss is just assuming something from nothing. That's important because prior conditions have to be accounted for. There are problems with this account. First, we have just seen, it assumes laws and fields with no explanation as to where othey came from. Secondly, when physicists say “nothing,” they don’t mean real actual nothing, absence of anything, they really mean vacuum flux; that is the pre existing framework of law and field and the arrangement of these things and the sporadic popping in-and-out of prior existing particles. As Albert says, “Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff..” [10] “Nothing” in terms of no particles does not mean “nothing” in terms of no fields, or no laws. Thus “nothing” doesn’t mean “nothing,” it means something for which we still must account.


The particles doing the popping are “virtual particles,” meaning they are made up of combinations of other particles that come together for a short time then break apart again. “Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.”[11]

Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.

But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles.[12]
Thus it's only said that they are coming from nothing because there's a new combination of particles that only exists for a short time. Yet they are actually coming from other particles. Quantum theory is not the best explanation for the age old question, why are we here where did it all come from? God not only provides an ultimate sources but is also a more elegant solution because one simple idea furnishes both the explanation of origins and also ties up morality and everything else into one neat solution.

see new apemdix to this article below imn fn [13]


Sources



1 CTC op. Cit.

 2 Edgar Andres, “Review: the Grand Design,” Challies'.com, Tim Challies, on line reouce, URL:


http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/the-grand-design acessed 10/4/15


Andres is Emeritus professor University of London. Physicist and an expert on large molecules. Born 1932,


3 Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There is something Rather Than Nothing. New York, NY: Free press, a division of Simon and Schuster, 2012.

 4 Ibid 189.

 5 David Albert, “On the Origin of Everything ‘a Universe form Nothing’ by Lawrence Krauss,” New York Times Sunday Book Review (March 23, 2012). On line version URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books ... rauss.html visited June 20, 2012. David Albert also has a Ph.D. in theoretical phsyics.


Albert is Frederick E. Woodbridge Professor of Philosophy at Columbia, and runs a MA program in philosophy and physics.

 6 ibid.

 7 ibid

 8 ibid

 9 ibid

 10 ibid

11 Gordon Kane, “Are Virtual Particles Really Constantly Popping In and Out of existence? Or Are They Merely a Mathematical Bookkeeping Device For Quantum Mechanics?” Scientific American, (Oct. 9, 2006) on line version URL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
 american.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/ accessed 10/12/15
this article was moved this is the new URKL since first wrote my blog piece,

Kane is director of the Michigan center for theoretical physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

12 Ibid.

this is the article

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.
[13] Michael Moyer, "Physicists debate the many verities of nothing."  Scientific American,    ( March 22, 2013) on lime versiom URL:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physicists-debate-the-many-varieties-of-nothingness/
here is a quote from scientificL American. Reporting om a debate (which included Krauss) on "what nothing Means." 

speaking of empty space such as that between objects in a room or between nucleus of an atom and electrons: 

This sort of nothing—the absence of matter—we might consider to be the first level of nothing, clarified J. Richard Gott, a physicist and cosmologist at Princeton University and the author of “Sizing Up the Universe: The Cosmos in Perspective.” It’s what scientists call a quantum vacuum state. It’s a box with everything taken out of it—all the stuff, all the air, all the light. “It even has a color—it’s black,” deadpanned Gott, who frequently demonstrated the best comedic timing of the bunch. Yet even in this nothing, something remains. Virtual quantum particles pop in and out of being, and the empty box still contains the basic scaffolding of existence: space, time and quantum fields." [end quote]

This is what my essay was about virtual particles and how they are not popping out of nonexistence or lack of being but coming out of other particles that already exist,' this tells us two things:

(1) VP's are not coming from nothing but from pre existing particle which is called vacuum flx.

(2) Vacuum flux is QVS they are the same,so when you say no they are not coming from vacuum flux they are coming from QVS you are saying:these are not chick peas they are garbanzo beans.(garbanzo beans are chick peas)

this means noting is changed with my article it is right on target; when they talk about particles coming from nothing they really mean combining from pre existing particles that are in QVS. so where do those come from?

The article torches on this:
Quote
But where did these come from? Was this something always there? We can trace the history of the universe back to the first instant after the Big Bang, when the cosmos was unimaginably hot and dense and expanding rapidly. But here the laws of physics break down, and with them our ability to reconstruct what came before—indeed, if its even proper to speak of a “before.” This space outside of the universe (though it is certainly misleading to call it a “space”) is the second kind of nothing—the complete lack of space and time and quantum fields. The absence not just of matter and energy, but of the conditions necessary for being."close Quote

at that point one must interject metaphysics, there's nothing else to do.

Did you know that Krauss says he wants to eliminate philosophy because it has out lived it's usefulness? (Priesthood of knowledge)

83 comments:

Eric Sotnak said...

Krauss does not claim to prove that the universe came from nothing. He is quite clear about arguing only that a universe from nothing is consistent with contemporary quantum theory, and that, therefore, cosmological arguments fail. That is, to put it as a variant of your post's headline, a universe from nothing does not prove God.

im-skeptical said...

Quantum theory is not the best explanation for the age old question, why are we here where did it all come from? God not only provides an ultimate sources but is also a more elegant solution because one simple idea furnishes both the explanation of origins and also ties up morality and everything else into one neat solution.

Quantum theory, like every scientific theory, doesn't answer the theistic question of "Why?" Only theism can do that, and then only if you assume that your theistic answer (the one and only possible answer that you would ever concede IS an answer) is correct. But we have no objective reason to agree that it's true.

On the other hand, it is demonstrably wrong to say that theism provides any solution to questions of "How?" On that score, all we have is a lot of hand-waving just-so stories, none of which are backed by any kind of rigorous testing or verification to show that they are consistent with reality.

Joe Hinman said...

Krauss does not claim to prove that the universe came from nothing. He is quite clear about arguing only that a universe from nothing is consistent with contemporary quantum theory, and that, therefore, cosmological arguments fail. That is, to put it as a variant of your post's headline, a universe from nothing does not prove God.

That is wrong. Nothing does not mean nothing, so there no evidence that a universe could come from nothing that means it's not consist with anything proven,

Did you red David Alert's review? I have a section on Krauss in my foth coming book, God,Science and Ideology. I read his book and I quote him,

Joe Hinman said...

her is a quote from Krauss in an interview LA Times

"The illusion of purpose and design is perhaps the most pervasive illusion about nature that science has to confront on a daily basis. Everywhere we look, it appears that the world was designed so that we could flourish. The position of the Earth around the sun, the presence of organic materials and water and a warm climate — all make life on our planet possible. Yet,

with perhaps 100 billion solar systems in our galaxy alone, with ubiquitous water, carbon and hydrogen, it isn't surprising that these conditions would arise somewhere. …As to the diversity of life on Earth.... For many, to live in a universe that may have no purpose, and no creator, is unthinkable.
But science has taught us to think the unthinkable. Because when nature is the guide — rather than a priori prejudices, hopes, fears or desires — we are forced out of our comfort zone. One by one, pillars of classical logic have fallen by the wayside as science progressed in the 20th century, from Einstein's realization that measurements of space and time were not absolute but observer-dependent, to quantum mechanics, which not only put fundamental limits on what we can empirically know but also demonstrated that elementary particles and the atoms they form are doing a million seemingly impossible things at once"


He is clearly saying that the data is forcing us to some inexorable conclusion and that conclusion is not personal. The conclusion is in the direction of accidental origin.No purpose.

In an interview in the Atlantic

"But I am certainly claiming a lot more than just that [that something can come from nothing]. That it's possible to create particles from no particles is remarkable— that you can do that with impunity, without violating the conservation of energy and all that, is a remarkable thing. The fact that "nothing," namely empty space, is unstable is amazing. But I'll be the first to say that empty space as I'm describing it isn't necessarily nothing, although I will add that it was plenty good enough for Augustine and the people who wrote the Bible. For them an eternal empty void was the definition of nothing, and certainly I show that that kind of nothing ain't nothing anymore"

that sounds like more than just saying the data makes the conclusion possible.

Joe Hinman said...

Joe Hinman said...
my paraphrase of Krauss "Krauss argues that the eternal laws of Quantum mechanics produce particles out of nothing when the instability of vacuum states causes quantum fields to shift and produce different kinds of particles. [4](p189,)"

do you have access to 189 now/ I do not. I wrote this article in fall of 15, I was using material I wrote in 2014 for the book I hope to put out in the fall. I read Krauss as soon as it came out. I think those statements in interviews might bare out my reading of Krauss, but if you have access to the book do quote for me where he says he's only saying data indicates a possibility, I will get a fn in the book before it comes out,

Joe Hinman said...

saying it's consistent with QM theory is misleading because the actual theory only speaks of "nothing" by way of meaning vacuum flux,the theory doesn't actually say things are coming from actual nothing, one would have to explain vacuum flux to beat the CA.

Joe Hinman said...

"On the other hand, it is demonstrably wrong to say that theism provides any solution to questions of "How?" On that score, all we have is a lot of hand-waving just-so stories, none of which are backed by any kind of rigorous testing or verification to show that they are consistent with reality."

how is not as important as why, but it is important. Everyone should know science,If I was in charge of education there would be 4 basic subjects everyone should know math, science, liberal arts and social studies,

Eric Sotnak said...

Where you and Krauss part company is that you affirm the principle that Being can only come from Being. Krauss, in contrast, rejects this principle and holds that there is empirical evidence for the claim that Being can sometimes come from non-being.

At the heart of this disagreement is, in fact, a difference regarding metaphysical commitments. As you rightly point out, for Krauss, "nothing" (or non-being) does not mean what it does for you. But equally, "being" does not mean what it does for you either.

I once gave a talk in which I invoked Krauss as an (unwitting) ally in defending a claim found in the Laozi, that "being and non-being give rise to each other." I pointed out that in terms of most classical Western metaphysics, this is simply incoherent nonsense. But that is only because the terms "being" and "non-being" already come to us loaded with certain metaphysical presuppositions. Progress in science has repeatedly required us to revise many of our basic assumptions about how reality is and must be. I see no reason to exclude on a priori grounds the kind of reinterpretation of "nothing" that Krauss recommends in his case for a universe from nothing.

im-skeptical said...

how is not as important as why, but it is important.

"Why" is important to religious people, because they must assume that there IS a "why", and that the answer to that question is God. Take away your presumption of God, and "why" is no longer an issue. Things simply are what they are. Alternatively, you might ask yourself Why does God exist instead of nothing?

im-skeptical said...

Did you red David Alert's review?

Albert is a shill for religionism. And the ending of his review is a dead give-away. You are aware, are you not, that he gets paid by the Templeton Foundation to push their agenda of inserting religion into science, thus degrading and devaluing scientific investigation?

Joe Hinman said...

that is really stupid, My best friend who I grew up with him. He studied with Albert at NYU, my friend could not be called a coreligionist by any stretch,he speaks real highly of Albert he is no Fallwell type. But you are a paranoid ideologue,science worshiper. You area scientisitic coreligionist,i can tell by the stuff you say it's a dead give away,

Joe Hinman said...

Albert has a Ph,D imn physics so he is in the holy priesthood of knowledge,

Joe Hinman said...

Where you and Krauss part company is that you affirm the principle that Being can only come from Being. Krauss, in contrast, rejects this principle and holds that there is empirical evidence for the claim that Being can sometimes come from non-being.

but there is not,what he calls nothing is not nothing,

im-skeptical said...

but there is not,what he calls nothing is not nothing,

Joe, you cited some of Krauss' words (carefully chosen) from an interview in The Atlantic (as I recall). I wonder why you didn't choose to include what he said after the part you quoted?

And by the way, I'm really tired of your "priesthood of knowledge". Your being a former PhD candidate in some religious program does not make you smarter or more knowledgeable than others. But your constant lording it over others who you suppose to be less educated (like this) makes you look like a boor.

Eric Sotnak said...

"what he calls nothing is not nothing,"

It isn't the kind of nothing YOU think is denoted by the word "nothing." But it doesn't follow that the account of nothing he invokes is wrong.

It's like someone who insists that "space" can only refer to euclidean space, so when science says that space is non-euclidean, they respond that "what they call space is not space."

Joe Hinman said...

Eric Sotnak said...
"what he calls nothing is not nothing,"

It isn't the kind of nothing YOU think is denoted by the word "nothing." But it doesn't follow that the account of nothing he invokes is wrong.

It's like someone who insists that "space" can only refer to euclidean space, so when science says that space is non-euclidean, they respond that "what they call space is not space."
7:14 PM


If it's right that worse fro him so being right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is the argument proceeds from the assumption that something cannot come from total absolute nothing, not that it can't come from something he calls "nothing" which is not nothing.

The fact that it is merely more particles means he has to explain those particles, he can't he has no explanation he has a gimmick. he has a bait and switch, jazzing it up in scientific garb does not change the fact we do not see something coming from absolute nothing.

He's just kicking the can down the road,

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
but there is not,what he calls nothing is not nothing,

Joe, you cited some of Krauss' words (carefully chosen) from an interview in The Atlantic (as I recall). I wonder why you didn't choose to include what he said after the part you quoted?

because it's not different your little insinuation that he goes on to say other stuff that changes my conclusion about it and i'm being dishonist is really stupid. you must quote the interview and show that that's the case. insinuations are dishonest.

And by the way, I'm really tired of your "priesthood of knowledge". Your being a former PhD candidate in some religious program does not make you smarter or more knowledgeable than others.

DO YOU THINK THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, YOU IDIOT ??? I'VE CORRECTED YOU ON THIS LIE MANY TIMES,LYIJNG PEICE OF HIST.




HISTORY OF IDEAS,SECULAR PROGRAM, university OF TEXAS
HISTORY OF IDEAS,SECULAR PROGRAM, university OF TEXAS
HISTORY OF IDEAS,SECULAR PROGRAM, university OF TEXAS


But your constant lording it over others who you suppose to be less educated (like this) makes you look like a boor.

you tell me I don't know anything about science m your reasoning is usual because I say things you don't agree with,often it not a scientific question but sociology of knowledge,

Eric Sotnak said...

"it is merely more particles"

No, it isn't. A quantum vacuum is not particles.

Since Krauss rejects the assumption that in the beginning was an absolute nothing, he doesn't have to make an argument with that as a premise.

Joe Hinman said...

the particles aren't combining from actual nothing they combing with per existing particles, read the article, Krauss does not explain the basics,

Joe Hinman said...

Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, provides this answer.
Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested.
Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. If that were all that occurred we would still be confident that it was a real effect because it is an intrinsic part of quantum mechanics, which is extremely well tested, and is a complete and tightly woven theory--if any part of it were wrong the whole structure would collapse.
But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles, and that leads to a number of tests of the quantum-mechanical predictions about virtual particles. The first test was understood in the late 1940s. In a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton are bound together by photons (the quanta of the electromagnetic field). Every photon will spend some time as a virtual electron plus its antiparticle, the virtual positron, since this is allowed by quantum mechanics as described above. The hydrogen atom has two energy levels that coincidentally seem to have the same energy. But when the atom is in one of those levels it interacts differently with the virtual electron and positron than when it is in the other, so their energies are shifted a tiny bit because of those interactions. That shift was measured by Willis Lamb and the Lamb shift was born, for which a Nobel Prize was eventually awarded.
Quarks are particles much like electrons, but different in that they also interact via the strong force. Two of the lighter quarks, the so-called "up" and "down" quarks, bind together to make up protons and neutrons. The "top" quark is the heaviest of the six types of quarks. In the early 1990s it had been predicted to exist but had not been directly seen in any experiment. At the LEP collider at the European particle physics laboratory CERN, millions of Z bosons--the particles that mediate neutral weak interactions--were produced and their mass was very accurately measured. The Standard Model of particle physics predicts the mass of the Z boson, but the measured value differed a little. This small difference could be explained in terms of the time the Z spent as a virtual top quark if such a top quark had a certain mass. When the top quark mass was directly measured a few years later at the Tevatron collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory near Chicago, the value agreed with that obtained from the virtual particle analysis, providing a dramatic test of our understanding of virtual particles.
Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.
Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.

im-skeptical said...

because it's not different your little insinuation that he goes on to say other stuff that changes my conclusion about it and i'm being dishonist is really stupid. you must quote the interview and show that that's the case. insinuations are dishonest.

- He goes on to talk about what he really means by the term "nothing". And if you bothered to read it and understand what he's talking about, you would find that some of the things you say about him are not true. But you're not interested in understanding him, are you?


DO YOU THINK THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, YOU IDIOT ??? I'VE CORRECTED YOU ON THIS LIE MANY TIMES,LYIJNG PEICE OF HIST.

- You miss the point, Joe. There are plenty of things about which you have little or no knowledge. You are constantly harping about being a PhD candidate (ABD), and how superior that makes you. (Not to mention the fact that you automatically assume others are less educated than you.) BULLSHIT.


you tell me I don't know anything about science m your reasoning is usual because I say things you don't agree with,often it not a scientific question but sociology of knowledge,

- Joe, when it comes to science, you really don't know as much as you think. Your ABD PhD doesn't provide you with any significant scientific understanding (despite taking a course in science for liberal arts students). Your scientific knowledge is eclipsed by freshmen in a real scientific curriculum. And you don't fool people with all your cutting and pasting, like the comment above, which really doesn't address the issue at hand.

Joe Hinman said...

He goes on to talk about what he really means by the term "nothing". And if you bothered to read it and understand what he's talking about, you would find that some of the things you say about him are not true. But you're not interested in understanding him, are you?

then why aren't you quoting what he says? what he does not say is what matters,he does not say "Yes I really Mean true absolute nothing." He does not say "Albert is wrong." He says Albert is a philosopher he doesn't know scenic,which is not true but he does not say what Albert says is wrong.

Joe Hinman said...

DO YOU THINK THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, YOU IDIOT ??? I'VE CORRECTED YOU ON THIS LIE MANY TIMES,LYIJNG PEICE OF HIST.

- You miss the point, Joe. There are plenty of things about which you have little or no knowledge. You are constantly harping about being a PhD candidate (ABD), and how superior that makes you. (Not to mention the fact that you automatically assume others are less educated than you.) BULLSHIT.


where did you do your doctoral work? I have had more education than you, Now look you can't face the responsibility of your actions,you said i did Ph,D work in religious program that denies the training I had in history and philosophy of science. You do not know beans about that,I may not know how many molecules make five we are not discussing that, that might matter if we were arguing evolution but we are not. Knowing scientific facts is useless in a discussion about Kuhn or Popper.I know paradigm shifts and verisimilitude and yo do not. II bet never heard of Peter Berger and you have idea what sociology of knowledge is. It cuts to pieces your little ideology of science worship.


ME:"you tell me I don't know anything about science m your reasoning is usual because I say things you don't agree with,often it not a scientific question but sociology of knowledge."

- Joe, when it comes to science, you really don't know as much as you think. Your ABD PhD doesn't provide you with any significant scientific understanding (despite taking a course in science for liberal arts students).

what I just said--we are not arguing about scientific understanding, we are arguing sociology of knowledge, But there two 2 things:

(1) you thunk knowing science makes one worthy and to be right because you think sinecure is holy knowledge that automatically makes one always right.that's really an excuse not to have to face the truth of your biases,

(2)


Your scientific knowledge is eclipsed by freshmen in a real scientific curriculum. And you don't fool people with all your cutting and pasting, like the comment above, which really doesn't address the issue at hand.

you are playing your game,I know science so I'm worthy,no you trace out the logic and show me where in the argument actual facts of splenetic knowledge matter,show how they change the issue,

because you are not willing to question Krauss you have not read any criticism of him, you may know about the set up with electrons that does not mean you about the specifics of "nothing" in Qm theory.

Ryan M said...

"Albert is a shill for religionism. And the ending of his review is a dead give-away. You are aware, are you not, that he gets paid by the Templeton Foundation to push their agenda of inserting religion into science, thus degrading and devaluing scientific investigation?"

I don't know if Albert is a shill for religion given that he's an atheist, but I didn't know he had a relationship with the Templeton Foundation. That's a red flag imo. Do you have specific examples of Albert inserting religion into science? From my position as an atheist, I'd find it rather unethical to do such a thing for the sake of money (well, I'd do it for a billion dollars and then donate basically a billion dollars to people who need it).

Ryan M said...

"Albert has a Ph,D imn physics so he is in the holy priesthood of knowledge,"

To a degree I would call physics the holy priesthood of knowledge. However, while a person with a physics degree must be intelligent, I don't think they should always be thought of as critical thinkers. Frank Tippler has some very odd views that I believe Krauss makes look silly in debate. Even Penrose, imo, puts his critical thinking cap away when talking about consciousness and some other subjects.

Ryan M said...

"And by the way, I'm really tired of your "priesthood of knowledge"."

Unless I missed something, Joe was not referring to himself but rather referring to Albert having a PHD in physics and thus having a degree in the "priesthood of knowledge". I think Joe brings up Albert's actual science credentials to show that he cannot be dismissed out of hand, especially by non scientists (so, probably about anyone talking about science on the internet).

im-skeptical said...

but I didn't know he had a relationship with the Templeton Foundation. That's a red flag imo. Do you have specific examples

-Here.


Unless I missed something, Joe was not referring to himself ...

- Actually, Joe does this constantly. See the link.

Eric Sotnak said...

"the particles aren't combining from actual nothing"

Once again, you are working from the assumption that at some point in the history of things, there must have been an "actual nothing". Roughly, the story you seem to think Krauss has to tell goes like this: Once upon a time there was an absolute nothing. Then, somehow from this there was a quantum vacuum state (what Krauss calls "nothing"). Then, from this there was the Big Bang.

But Krauss would reject the part of the story where things shift from an absolute nothing to a quantum vacuum state. Why couldn't the QVS be where it all starts? Now I know what you think the answer will be here. You think that a QVS has to count as a type of being, because you accept the principle that being can only come from being. But in accepting this you accept as a foundational commitment a view of being and (absolute) nothingness that may not fit all that well with quantum physics, where particles, waves, and fields blur into one another.

Joe Hinman said...

Ryan M said...
"And by the way, I'm really tired of your "priesthood of knowledge"."


Unless I missed something, Joe was not referring to himself but rather referring to Albert having a PHD in physics and thus having a degree in the "priesthood of knowledge".
that's one count

I think Joe brings up Albert's actual science credentials to show that he cannot be dismissed out of hand, especially by non scientists (so, probably about anyone talking about science on the internet).

that's two counts

right on both counts

Joe Hinman said...

Ryan M said...
"Albert has a Ph,D imn physics so he is in the holy priesthood of knowledge,"

To a degree I would call physics the holy priesthood of knowledge. However, while a person with a physics degree must be intelligent, I don't think they should always be thought of as critical thinkers. Frank Tippler has some very odd views that I believe Krauss makes look silly in debate. Even Penrose, imo, puts his critical thinking cap away when talking about consciousness and some other subjects.

I still respect many people at SOP as thinkers,including you and Eric,but I think i have learned, none of you know jack shit about debate,no offense.

the phrase priesthood of knowledge is a quote from the work of sociologist C.wright Mills who charged his enemy Talcot Parsons and his ilk with forming a priesthood of knowledge: an elite group that seeks to mystify and control knowledge.He argues that science is reduced to this POK when it is tended by gate keepers who see it as their mission to rule over the common flock as intellectual inferiors and to close their ranks to all but those who are initiated into their ideology.

how the hell did Tempelton foundation get into this?

Joe Hinman said...

Eric Sotnak said...
"the particles aren't combining from actual nothing"

Once again, you are working from the assumption that at some point in the history of things, there must have been an "actual nothing".

No I'm not,I am saying that unless you assume that you are begging the question,you are willing to accept magic whoha that says something just always was it's not like God because it's continent property of laws of physics but it's just there for no reason forever,

Roughly, the story you seem to think Krauss has to tell goes like this: Once upon a time there was an absolute nothing. Then, somehow from this there was a quantum vacuum state (what Krauss calls "nothing"). Then, from this there was the Big Bang.

the quotes he said in the interview clearly said it, at you are arguing for him--I do not see you quoting him,

But Krauss would reject the part of the story where things shift from an absolute nothing to a quantum vacuum state. Why couldn't the QVS be where it all starts?

where did it come from> what caused it? It's part of nature so we should assume it needs a cause,


Now I know what you think the answer will be here. You think that a QVS has to count as a type of being, because you accept the principle that being can only come from being. But in accepting this you accept as a foundational commitment a view of being and (absolute) nothingness that may not fit all that well with quantum physics, where particles, waves, and fields blur into one another.

you are reading into that theory the ideas you need to be there philosophically. Sten Odenwald physicist for NASA (I quot from memory) "when physicists say 'nothing' they do not mean actual nothing.they mean vacuum flux"

you have to explain where the QV came from.

Joe Hinman said...

here is a quote from scientificL American. Reporting om a debate (which included Krauss) on "what nothing Means."

speaking of empty space such as that between objects in a room or between nucleus of an atom and electrons:

"This sort of nothing—the absence of matter—we might consider to be the first level of nothing, clarified J. Richard Gott, a physicist and cosmologist at Princeton University and the author of “Sizing Up the Universe: The Cosmos in Perspective.” It’s what scientists call a quantum vacuum state. It’s a box with everything taken out of it—all the stuff, all the air, all the light. “It even has a color—it’s black,” deadpanned Gott, who frequently demonstrated the best comedic timing of the bunch. Yet even in this nothing, something remains. Virtual quantum particles pop in and out of being, and the empty box still contains the basic scaffolding of existence: space, time and quantum fields." [end quote]

This is what my essay was about virtual particles and how they are not popping out of nonexistence or lack of being but coming out of other particles that already exist,' this tells us two things:

(1) VP's are not coming from nothing but from pre existing particle which is called vacuum flx.

(2) Vacuum flux is QVS they are the same,so when you say no they are not coming from vacuum flux they are coming from QVS you are saying:these are not chick peas they are garbanzo beans.(garbanzo beans are chick peas)

this means noting is changed with my article it is right on target; when they talk about particles coming from nothing they really mean combining from pre existing particles that are in QVS. so where do those come from?

The article torches on this:
Quote
"But where did these come from? Was this something always there? We can trace the history of the universe back to the first instant after the Big Bang, when the cosmos was unimaginably hot and dense and expanding rapidly. But here the laws of physics break down, and with them our ability to reconstruct what came before—indeed, if its even proper to speak of a “before.” This space outside of the universe (though it is certainly misleading to call it a “space”) is the second kind of nothing—the complete lack of space and time and quantum fields. The absence not just of matter and energy, but of the conditions necessary for being."close Quote

at that point one must interject metaphysics, there's nothing else to do.

Did you know that Krauss says he wants to eliminate philosophy because it has out lived it's usefulness? (Priesthood of knowledge)

Joe Hinman said...

I don't know if Albert is a shill for religion given that he's an atheist, but I didn't know he had a relationship with the Templeton Foundation. That's a red flag imo. Do you have specific examples of Albert inserting religion into science? From my position as an atheist, I'd find it rather unethical to do such a thing for the sake of money (well, I'd do it for a billion dollars and then donate basically a billion dollars to people who need it).

that is what the Dawkamemntalists not hating religion is inserting religion into science. Oppenheimer inserted religion into science but no one cares because it wasn't Christianity. All templetomn foundation does is show that religion is not killing people and it's not anti science,

Ryan M said...

"Actually, Joe does this constantly. See the link."

I know Joe talks about his education a lot. But in that instance he was referring to David Albert having a PHD in physics and you didn't respond to that but rather responded as if Joe mentioned his own academic credentials.

Ryan M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan M said...

Are there examples from the Templeton Project of Albert inserting religion into science? This is what I was asking for. I see that the project has some other people I'm familiar with such as Tim Maudlin, Brian Greene and Dean Zimmerman. Maudlin is a philosopher of physics, but is an atheist. Greene is a physicist, but is an atheist. Zimmerman is a philosopher and a theist. It's not clear to me, given the descriptions of their relative research, that Albert as a project leader was trying to inject religion into science.

This was the companion page of the project:

http://philocosmology.rutgers.edu/

I think you might have wrote Albert off prematurely. If you did, you open yourself up to Joe saying you're trying to make red herrings to ignore Albert having a PHD in physics that is relevant to discussing science and Krauss' work in particular (This is exactly what Joe is alleging ITT). Don't open yourself up to that. Attack Albert only for obviously legitimate reasons.

Ryan M said...

I'm not sure where your accusation of debate comes from. In any case, I work in law so I'm at least familiar with arguments, presenting them, and rebutting them. If you're referring to academic debates, like college debate performances, then yes I don't know much about them, but I don't think those are conducive to anything but scoring facile wins for one side based on skills rather than truth. Jeff has actual debate knowledge in that respect. It looks like it's more of a sport than anything. If it wasn't essentially a sport, I think I'd see more lawyers arguing like that, but that would definitely risk people's rights to be properly defended.

Joe Hinman said...

Ryan M said...
I'm not sure where your accusation of debate comes from. In any case, I work in law so I'm at least familiar with arguments, presenting them, and rebutting them. If you're referring to academic debates, like college debate performances, then yes I don't know much about them, but I don't think those are conducive to anything but scoring facile wins for one side based on skills rather than truth. Jeff has actual debate knowledge in that respect. It looks like it's more of a sport than anything. If it wasn't essentially a sport, I think I'd see more lawyers arguing like that, but that would definitely risk people's rights to be properly defended.

what you lack more than knowledge of debate is sense of humor, that was joke about around the problems with the famous Bowen-Hinman debate, ok maybe i need to hone my delivery some more,

Joe Hinman said...

Are there examples from the Templeton Project of Albert inserting religion into science? This is what I was asking for. I see that the project has some other people I'm familiar with such as Tim Maudlin, Brian Greene and Dean Zimmerman. Maudlin is a philosopher of physics, but is an atheist. Greene is a physicist, but is an atheist. Zimmerman is a philosopher and a theist. It's not clear to me, given the descriptions of their relative research, that Albert as a project leader was trying to inject religion into science.

This was the companion page of the project:

http://philocosmology.rutgers.edu/

I think you might have wrote Albert off prematurely. If you did, you open yourself up to Joe saying you're trying to make red herrings to ignore Albert having a PHD in physics that is relevant to discussing science and Krauss' work in particular (This is exactly what Joe is alleging ITT). Don't open yourself up to that. Attack Albert only for obviously legitimate reasons.

I don't know everything Templetom has done but the main reason the Dawkies don;t like it is because they try to show using science that religion is good,man that science and region are not enemies,this is what DAkwies call putting religion in science,.

the scinsitismists types have done that even more so because they use science as a substitue for god,

Eric Sotnak said...

Even given the distinction between the two kinds of nothing in the article you quoted from, it is wrong to take the second (primordial) type of nothing as absolute. It is, rather, an inherently unstable condition from which space, time, matter, and energy can all arise because of its inherent instability. The idea constitutes a rejection of the historically dominant view that in the beginning was a stable nothingness which requires external intervention to move it from the state of nothingness to a state of somethingness.

im-skeptical said...

I know Joe talks about his education a lot. But in that instance he was referring to David Albert having a PHD in physics and you didn't respond to that but rather responded as if Joe mentioned his own academic credentials.

Ryan, the point that I was making is that argument from authority is one of Joe's favorite debating tactics. When he starts getting into a pickle on some matter of fact, he invariably plays the "credentials" card. He has, on numerous occasions, said (of himself) that he is a member of the educated elite, and this is supposed to silence his interlocutor. He is saying essentially "Don't question my knowledge because as a member of this educated elite, I know more than you" He harps about his "ABD" status, and demands to see the credentials of his interlocutor. In this particular instance, he didn't tout his own credentials, he touted Albert's, but the effect is the same - "You can't argue against this man because he's a member of the elite". This is just argument from authority.

im-skeptical said...

It's not clear to me, given the descriptions of their relative research, that Albert as a project leader was trying to inject religion into science.

That is the mission of the Templeton foundation. They have money, and they use it to lure in scientists to work on their projects.

If you are interested in hearing more about it, try going to Jerry Coyne's blog and put 'templeton' in the search box to see what he has had to say about them.

Ryan M said...

I know about the Templeton Foundation, but I'm wondering what religion was inserted into science with Albert's project specifically. It seems two respected atheists were involved, being Tim Maudlin and Brian Greene, so I'm doubtful that their project was solely done for proliferating religious propaganda or that it had religious conclusions.

Ryan M said...

"This is just argument from authority."

I suppose you can call it that. But what I think is important is realizing that David Albert cannot dismissed as not knowing what he's talking about. He's still trained in the sciences, has a PHD in physics, and probably knows more about science than any of us combined. Joe might have noticed that people such as Krauss have simply ignored Albert's credentials and instead have labelled him as a "philosopher".

Joe Hinman said...

Eric Sotnak said...
"Even given the distinction between the two kinds of nothing in the article you quoted from, it is wrong to take the second (primordial) type of nothing as absolute. It is, rather, an inherently unstable condition from which space, time, matter, and energy can all arise because of its inherent instability. The idea constitutes a rejection of the historically dominant view that in the beginning was a stable nothingness which requires external intervention to move it from the state of nothingness to a state of somethingness."

Again there are particles already there which need explaining,They can't be eternal where do they come from? What's unstable is either nothingness itself true absolute nothing (TAN) or it's the set of pre existing particles will combine to become virtual that are unstable,either way you can't explain; If it is actual nothing that is unstable that's a fancy way of saying something popped into existence out of nothing. or if the former where the particles come from?

It's like a mythological langue,nothing became unstable = a set of particles made more particles.Or something popped out of nothing,


Joe Hinman said...

Ryan, the point that I was making is that argument from authority is one of Joe's favorite debating tactics. When he starts getting into a pickle on some matter of fact, he invariably plays the "credentials" card.

you and most atheists who are not professional academics appeal to authority all the time, First of all,appeal to expert testimony is not appeal to authority in the fallacious sense. Appeal to authority is really appeal to the wrong authority; "Albert Schweitzer said Hume is wrong for three reasons, that is not appeal to authority in the fallacious sense because Schweitzer was an expert on Hume. "My high school principle said,"That is an appeal to authority in the fallacious sense. Secondly you and so many other atheists(I just got this on Repppert's blog too) when you say:I know more about science than you do: you are trying to make yourself into an authority.

Joe Hinman said...

Skep says:

He has, on numerous occasions, said (of himself) that he is a member of the educated elite, and this is supposed to silence his interlocutor.

Bill shit. you and all the other uneducated atheists on message boards are just oblivious to your own actions,you never think about what you say that brings out that behavior in me. I start acting that way when you start going "you don't know anything about science." You are really ignorant and blind to the way atheists have treated Christians on the net,maybe Christians have not been Christ-like toward atheists either,but go look at athesitwatch and see how they treated me over the years.I have been subjected to the most absurd unfair unjust garbage, it really is cebre bullying and psychological gang baging.


He is saying essentially "Don't question my knowledge because as a member of this educated elite, I know more than you" He harps about his "ABD" status, and demands to see the credentials of his interlocutor.

It's not questioning my knowledge that makes me upset,I expect that.It;s refusing to accept that I have any knowledge that pisses me off.



In this particular instance, he didn't tout his own credentials, he touted Albert's, but the effect is the same - "You can't argue against this man because he's a member of the elite". This is just argument from authority.


that's insane, I never quote any expert because it's really trying to take credit for myself,that's just nuts.

Ryan M said...

Quoting experts is perfectly fine when the expert is a legitimate expert on the relevant subject area and the expert is not of a minority opinion with respect to the subject. My justification for many of my beliefs are appeals to what the majority of relevant authorities believe.

Joe Hinman said...

Just being in line with the majority (Krauss is not necessarily so) is not necessarily a guarantee of veracity. If every linguist said X and Chomsky said Y i would accept Y until otherwise proven. Or it could depend upon the evidence given. The minority view can often have the better evidence. There's a gray area of judgement in there. Stephen Shapin argues in Social History of truth that appeal to authority has always been a big part if science and it still is.

Joe Hinman said...

That thing about Chomsky,I say "if every linguist" that's hyperbole but I would give the great expert more weight than just a simple majority.

im-skeptical said...

Ryan:
so I'm doubtful that their project was solely done for proliferating religious propaganda or that it had religious conclusions.

- The way Templeton works is a bit more subtle than that. I hope you read some of the stuff Coyne (and others) have to say about them.


I suppose you can call it that.

- I can, and I did. That's the way Joe argues.


Joe might have noticed that people such as Krauss have simply ignored Albert's credentials and instead have labelled him as a "philosopher".

- Joe notices someone with a PhD arguing for the theistic side of the debate. Krauss makes a perfectly legitimate point about a philosophical issue (as Eric has been pointing out), but people like Albert dismiss it (with prejudice) in favor of a more traditional theistic-friendly view.

im-skeptical said...

Joe:
Again there are particles already there which need explaining,

- No, Joe. According to the theory, they come from nothing. Read my lips. There was nothing there before.


you and most atheists who are not professional academics appeal to authority all the time

- That's right. It is perfectly legitimate to cite the words of experts. Your augument is: I'm an ABD, and I know more than you. See the difference? (I doubt it.)


I start acting that way when you start going "you don't know anything about science."

- You act that way all the time. And you still don't know nearly as much about science as you pretend.


It's not questioning my knowledge that makes me upset,I expect that.It;s refusing to accept that I have any knowledge that pisses me off.

- But you say so many things that reveal how little you know. Here's a suggestion for you, Joe. Stay away from particle physics (or physics in general). You have no idea how ignorant you sound.

Eric Sotnak said...

"Again there are particles already there which need explaining"

No, there aren't, or at least there needn't be. That's the point. According to the quantum cosmology Krauss and others are working from, the initial state is an inherently unstable condition whose instability makes it possible for space, time (space-time) fields, and particles to arise spontaneously without cause. It is a condition to which the traditional labels of "being" and "nothingness" both fail to apply accurately. Traditional metaphysicians insist that they have to choose one or the other. If the choose being, then the accusation is that they have failed to answer the question of where being comes from. If they choose nothingness, then they insist that something cannot come from nothing (being can only come from being). They have missed the point that quantum mechanics spits in the face of traditional dichotomies. Consider, as other examples, the thesis of spontaneous decay, or the idea of superposition.

Joe Hinman said...

No, there aren't, or at least there needn't be. That's the point. According to the quantum cosmology Krauss and others are working from, the initial state is an inherently unstable condition whose instability makes it possible for space, time (space-time) fields, and particles to arise spontaneously without cause.

(1) the problem with using Krauss for docs om that point is his meaning of the terms he uses are in question.

(2) the Scientific American article I quoted said just that,that there are particles already there

(3) It seems what they are calling nothing is the disassemble of virtual particle into pre existing particles.


It is a condition to which the traditional labels of "being" and "nothingness" both fail to apply accurately.

Right because there are particles there already. Also because there are also states that have to explained let alone particles; laws of physics,time, something called called "unstable" only something can be unstable. You still dodge the issue that nothing being unstable really means popping into existence out of nothing which you have backed away from,and btw that makes Sartre's categories of being for itself and in itself all the more meaningful.

Traditional metaphysicians insist that they have to choose one or the other. If the choose being, then the accusation is that they have failed to answer the question of where being comes from. If they choose nothingness, then they insist that something cannot come from nothing (being can only come from being). They have missed the point that quantum mechanics spits in the face of traditional dichotomies. Consider, as other examples, the thesis of spontaneous decay, or the idea of superposition.

Sorry you are ignoring a whole wing of philosophy, with guys like Heidegger and terms like phenomenology.Take Tillich;s stat met that God is depth of being,(all that being itself stuff I was speaking about) talk about being having depth and that atheists only consider the surface level of being puts more into the concept. All the stuff Bowen says is "unclear," but you are speaking of a simplistic choice of either/or and obviously phenomenology sees more than that, it's the physicalist with the simple either.or choice.

Joe Hinman said...

Again there are particles already there which need explaining,

- No, Joe. According to the theory, they come from nothing. Read my lips. There was nothing there before.


This is in the atrial you did not read. The Scientific American Clarice says point blank nothing does not mean nothing, there are particles in QVS. It says it. start reading the material.It also corroborates my quote from Odenwald says physicists don't mean nothing when they say nothing. QVS is vacuum flux. the articles says it,

Eric Sotnak said...

"he Scientific American article I quoted said just that,that there are particles already there"

This is because within the chaotic condition of a quantum vacuum particles are constantly coming into and going out of existence (hence the term "chaotic") what is false is that every particle in the vacuum state comes into existence from other particles.

im-skeptical said...

This is in the atrial you did not read.

- Let me give this one more try. Joe, you don't understand what you're reading. I've told you this before. Yes, they use the word 'particle' in that article to refer to something from which virtual particles emerge. What physicists mean by that is states in the Feynman diagram - these are not particles in the sense that you understand, that exist in space and are detectable. The Feynman diagram is just a mathematical model. It is still true that particles emerge into space from nothing. Now, of course, the whole debate is about what we really mean when we say "nothing". This is the discussion that Krauss is engaged in. Maybe you should join that discussion, too.

Joe Hinman said...

"he Scientific American article I quoted said just that,that there are particles already there"

This is because within the chaotic condition of a quantum vacuum particles are constantly coming into and going out of existence (hence the term "chaotic") what is false is that every particle in the vacuum state comes into existence from other particles.

No that;s a misconception. First, if that was the case that would be something from nothing, still needs explaining. Secondly, the article on virtual particles shows that they are combining from pre-existing particles so it's not as though they really come from nothing that was the whole point,you are just not willing to accept the fact there's this big trick beimgplayed It's not nothing.

Joe Hinman said...

Let me give this one more try. Joe, you don't understand what you're reading. I've told you this before. Yes, they use the word 'particle' in that article to refer to something from which virtual particles emerge. What physicists mean by that is states in the Feynman diagram - these are not particles in the sense that you understand, that exist in space and are detectable. The Feynman diagram is just a mathematical model. It is still true that particles emerge into space from nothing. Now, of course, the whole debate is about what we really mean when we say "nothing". This is the discussion that Krauss is engaged in. Maybe you should join that discussion, too.

8:55 AM Delete

that is not a refutation of my argument, I don;t think are little balls,that just means really knows what they are. It;s just defining the tern with another undefined term, that goes back to my article "can modern science really explain the physics it prophetess to explaimn? no it does not, you still can't tell what they are made of.

To do that you will try to use some other term that is just an arbitrary cipher for that which you cannot know. There is some kind of stricture made up of time and physical law and something mysterious called "particles" but you don't know what it is.

you reject God because he's a mystery but replace him with your own mystery that wont tell you what to do.But it is telling you what to think.

Joe Hinman said...

Skep you need to understand the basis of science, here;s Popperis right, it's not about truth finding it's about last man standing, (last hypothesis standing) is presumed right not proven right. "Particles" may be really existing things but for the sake of theory they are just a form of book keeping,Look at the title of the Kane article: Gordon Kane, “Are Virtual Particles Really Constantly Popping In and Out of existence? Or Are They Merely a Mathematical Bookkeeping Device For Quantum Mechanics?” Scientific American, (Oct. 9, 2006) on line version URL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

theory is a road map and maps do not always stack up to the actual place they represent,you are trading one mystery for another.

but my mystery loves you.

im-skeptical said...

To do that you will try to use some other term that is just an arbitrary cipher for that which you cannot know. There is some kind of stricture made up of time and physical law and something mysterious called "particles" but you don't know what it is.

- Joe, I'm talking about the terminology that physicists use. The Feynman diagram describes the states of a hypothetical thing they call a particle. Those states can include a state of non-existence. This is consistent with the different states of quantum fields. It's really a way of book-keeping. It shows things coming into existence and going out of existence.


you reject God because he's a mystery but replace him with your own mystery that wont tell you what to do.But it is telling you what to think.

- This has absolutely nothing to do with God. It is only your superstitious beliefs that posit the need for God to explain what you don't understand.


Skep you need to understand the basis of science, here;s Popperis right, it's not about truth finding it's about last man standing

- Don't tell me about how science works. I understand it much better than you. I've worked with it all my life. Your God hypothesis was falsified long ago, but you refuse to recognize that, because you are totally blinkered by religious belief.

Eric Sotnak said...

"you reject God because he's a mystery but replace him with your own mystery"

There are certainly mysteries aplenty when it comes to the kinds of questions at issue. The way I see it, theists have long claimed to hold the rational high ground by claiming to know how to banish those mysteries. Many theists still want to claim that God is the only game in town when it comes to explaining the origins of the universe, the origins of life, the existence of beauty, etc. Krauss admits that he doesn't hold all the answers and doesn't pretend to give a fully-worked-out account of how the universe came from nothing. What he says is that the resources of current physics are now rich enough that we can begin to suggest plausible accounts of how the universe came into existence without supernatural agency. Theism is no longer the only game in town.

You (and other theists) are trying to hold onto God as the only game in town by insisting that Krauss play by the metaphysical rules that have been largely the standard in natural theology. In particular, you want to insist that Krauss accept an ontological dichotomy of being vs nothingness, and the principle that being only comes from being. Since there is being, there must have always been being, and then you want to plug God in as the being that always was and rule out any alternatives.

The usual atheological response has been to suggest that perhaps something other than God can be plugged in as the being that always was. What Krauss suggests, instead, is actually something different: that the being-nonbeing dichotomy itself is flawed, and that there is already abundant evidence from physics that it is flawed.

You and other of Krauss's critics keep insisting that since a Kraussian "nothing" isn't a metaphysically absolute nothing, it is therefore being, and therefore we're back to the being-only-comes-from-being principle.

Now I'm not a physicist. I certainly don't claim to know that anything like Krauss's model is right. I don't understand matters well enough to render a truly informed judgment. So my position is that no one has yet been shown to be in a position to say with high confidence that Krauss is certainly wrong (especially since there are other highly respected physicists who are saying things along similar lines). Furthermore, since I am a philosopher, I feel confident enough to say that disregarding physics altogether, there still aren't sufficient grounds to accept theism as very explanatorily fecund.

Joe Hinman said...

Krauss does not have the evidence he claims to have, he cannot rule out God, his evidence is not what he ties to make of it.The problem with your narrative, Eric,is that the apparent smugness of Christianity or of atheism (for smug read his Krausses' anti philosophy stuff) the attitude of any side toward it's knowledge is neither here nor there, That does not determine truth,

JBsptfn said...

IMS Your God hypothesis was falsified long ago, but you refuse to recognize that, because you are totally blinkered by religious belief.

By who?

im-skeptical said...

By Who?

Everyone who has ever examined it from a scientific perspective. Now, I know you will reject the truth of that, but I understand that you reject science anyway (in favor of pseudo-science). So you are in no position to dispute ANY scientific findings.

JBsptfn said...

Who's this everyone? And, I don't reject science. I reject scientism, which you are a purveyor of.

im-skeptical said...

You don't believe the reality of evolution (for one thing). That is not a rejection of "scientism". it is a rejection of science.

JBsptfn said...

Evolution isn't as secure as you think. And, I don't believe this because of religious belief, like you would probably claim.

im-skeptical said...

There's no point in showing evidence to a religious fundie. I tried that before. You are deluded. Evolution if on solid ground, despite the lies you hear from Stan and his idiot cohorts.

JBsptfn said...

IMS There's no point in showing evidence to a religious fundie. I tried that before. You are deluded. Evolution is on solid ground, despite the lies you hear from Stan and his idiot cohorts.

I believe in God and Jesus, but I am not a religious fundy. However, I think that you are a fundy atheist. You like to label all Christian believers as superstitious, and you seem to have a perverted view of science as an all powerful god.

im-skeptical said...

Ah, yes. The old "I know you are but what am I?" ploy. Funny you should say that.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
By Who?

Everyone who has ever examined it from a scientific perspective. Now, I know you will reject the truth of that, but I understand that you reject science anyway (in favor of pseudo-science). So you are in no position to dispute ANY scientific findings.
7:29 AM

Everyone hu? John Polkinghorn quite being one of the greatest physicists in the world teaching at Cambridge to become a priest, and Alan Sandage is a born again Christian,

Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
Ah, yes. The old "I know you are but what am I?" ploy. Funny you should say that.

Skep it's clash of two religions,for you science is a religion. Own up, Stop looking at it as a war, take Ryan's advice.

Your version of science meets my definition of religion,you might as well start thinking of religion as a poative thing,

JBsptfn said...

IMS Ah, yes. The old "I know you are but what am I?" ploy. Funny you should say that.

I just read that. It is nothing but more of the same garbage from you. Here is an example:

But the underpinnings of my atheism have not been watered down at all. Call me a fundie if you want, but I'm sticking with unvarnished naturalism and empiricism. It's not a religious adherence, and it's not unthinking. The philosophical basis of my atheism has remained unscathed to this day. And there is not a shred of objective evidence that refutes it. I don't worship "Science (tm)", but I understand that science is successful in revealing truths about reality. It's the very thing that has forced religionists to back down from their own fundamentalist origins. The most reasonable thing for religionists to do is to continue following the same line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.

im-skeptical said...

Everyone hu? John Polkinghorn quite being one of the greatest physicists in the world teaching at Cambridge to become a priest, and Alan Sandage is a born again Christian,

- Like I said, everyone who has ever examined it from a scientific perspective. Needless to say, Christians never examine their religious belief from a scientific perspective (or those who do become atheists as a result).


Skep it's clash of two religions

- Stop trying to drag me down to your level. Read the article.


Your version of science meets my definition of religion,you might as well start thinking of religion as a poative thing,

- And what definition do you use? Basing belief on objective facts?

7th Stooge said...

Everyone who has ever examined it from a scientific perspective. Now, I know you will reject the truth of that, but I understand that you reject science anyway (in favor of pseudo-science). So you are in no position to dispute ANY scientific findings.

How does that even begin to make sense other than as a faith claim? God has been investigated from a myriad of scientific perspectives by people with all sorts of prior commitments before and after their investigations. It's far more complex than "Science looks at God: science wins!"

If you're not a purveyor of scientism, who in your opinion would be? Do you think there is such a thing as scientism or are you among those who think that it's a cover for theists promoting the agenda: "Science bad! God good!"?

im-skeptical said...

I understand that you reject science anyway (in favor of pseudo-science).
- Oh, brother. So you stand with JBsptfn, who believes that some kind of ID is real science, and evolution theory is pseudo-science? Or Joe, who thinks that his "200 studies" provide an empirical "warrant for belief"? Yes, I reject their brand of "science" - it ain't real science.

So you are in no position to dispute ANY scientific findings.
- I'm sure many science deniers think so.

It's far more complex than "Science looks at God: science wins!"
- You see, it's you - mot me - who are trying to pit theism against science. I never said anything like that. I said science is a way of knowing or understanding things in our world. I don't try to make a war of it. Science is based on empirical evidence. I believe what is supported by the evidence. If the evidence actually supported belief in God, then I would believe in God. It's that simple. I don't have some bias (as you imagine I do) telling me to only believe the non-theistic. Perhaps the reason think that is because that's how your own belief system works. Show me evidence, and then I'll have reason to believe.

If you're not a purveyor of scientism, who in your opinion would be? Do you think there is such a thing as scientism or are you among those who think that it's a cover for theists promoting the agenda: "Science bad! God good!"?
- If you want to call me a purveyor od something, call it "empiricism". Scientism is a loaded word that means different things to different people, and is typically used as a pejorative by religionists against empiricists. Read this for more information on "scientism".

Joe Hinman said...

- Like I said, everyone who has ever examined it from a scientific perspective. Needless to say, Christians never examine their religious belief from a scientific perspective (or those who do become atheists as a result).


you can't accept science as a neutral tool, you can;t accept it as limited to empirical knowledge,it's your faith your religion,it is your God. you deny that great scientists who are christians do science,

Joe Hinman said...

If the evidence actually supported belief in God, then I would believe in God. It's that simple

bull shit you deny the evidence when it doesn't support your ideology you deny all scinece when it can;t be used to attack religion.

Ryan M said...

"it's your faith your religion,it is your God."

Joe do you not see how odd this tactic is? You trivialize both "God" and "Religion" by making an attack like that. IM_S might have beliefs that he finds unquestionable, but that is not like believing that a God exists, or that a religion is true.

Further, you use that attack to portray something negative towards IM_S, but if it's negative to have a God for him, or it's negative to have a religion for him, then it's negative to have a God or religion for you as well.

im-skeptical said...

you deny that great scientists who are christians do science
- No, I don't. But I deny that they have ever examined the God hypothesis from a scientific perspective.


bull shit you deny the evidence when it doesn't support your ideology you deny all scinece when it can;t be used to attack religion.
- No, I have never denied science. I do not reject empirical evidence. That's what religionists do. And I do not attack religion. I told you I am not at war. But just listen to your own words - always hostile - always attacking me. And Ryan makes a good point that I have also raised before. If religious belief is so good, then why do you keep accusing me of it as if it were bad?

Joe Hinman said...

Joe do you not see how odd this tactic is? You trivialize both "God" and "Religion" by making an attack like that. IM_S might have beliefs that he finds unquestionable, but that is not like believing that a God exists, or that a religion is true.

you got it backwards, it;s ironic that the atheist has a God-thing that functions like God in his ontological economy, God is not a personality to whom one owes loyalty but a fujction in origination to being,

Further, you use that attack to portray something negative towards IM_S, but if it's negative to have a God for him, or it's negative to have a religion for him, then it's negative to have a God or religion for you as well.

It's hypocritical to speak with scorn for all religion and then do so because your big reaison-d'etre is another religon,

im-skeptical said...

It's hypocritical to speak with scorn for all religion and then do so because your big reaison-d'etre is another religon
- OK. Joe. Go ahead and define "religion". Because I don't worship anything, but obviously, you do. And if you want to accuse me of worshiping something, then you need to define that, too. It seems clear to me that you're just making shit up to suit your purpose at the moment (because it's you, not me, whose at war), but you couldn't use those same definitions in more general situations.