Philosophy Now Forum

For Immanuel Can

I did a Google search for "A Universe From Nothing" and found a lecture by Lawrence Krauss on this very topic. It is as I thought, Krasuss is talking about a universe from something, not a universe from nothing.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:18 am I think you have a aversion to quantum mechanics because it postulates no need for a first cause.

Even were that true, it's immaterial. The only question is whether or not what I'm saying is true, not who wants it to be true.

Immanuel Can wrote: Because the alternative is recognizing that a First Cause is inescapable, and potentially, that opens the door to the idea of God again. This is exactly what dismayed so many cosmologists when the "red shift effect" was finally accepted as necessary science, back in the '60s. You can find no end of them inveighing that this would open the door to Creationism again.

As I said before, a quantum explanation has the potential to eliminate a first cause.[/quote]
That's the hope of those who postulate it, I suppose. But it's not a great credit to the theory. After all, a theory that supposed that the world was created by magic dust would also eliminate the need for a first cause...but I don't suppose that recommends a belief in magic.

The key thing is what real evidence there is for it. QM is presently no more than a speculation.

A universe merging from nothing makes no sense...

Yes, that's the point.

But QF is also a causal explanation. Look back at the critique from the NYT, and you'll see that an objection to QM is that it implies "laws" that need to be accounted for, or how does a QV produce order and complexity? After all, how can "nothing" have "laws"?

A universe from nothing makes no sense at all and I am sure Krauss knows this.

I'm sure he does, too. Which is why I suspect his title was merely dishonest in the first place.

I do, but a universe from something can be empirically demonstrated.

Of course. But then the "something" also needs its own explanation, and the causal chain reappears. And, as we can see mathematically, there cannot be such a thing as an actual infinite regress of such explanations.

The upshot, then, is that the QM explanation merely moves the problem back one step, if it relies on a "something," and doesn't represent any kind of solution at all to the First Cause necessity. And I suspect Krauss also knew that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:28 am

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:18 am I think you have a aversion to quantum mechanics because it postulates no need for a first cause.

Even were that true, it's immaterial. The only question is whether or not what I'm saying is true, not who wants it to be true.

Immanuel Can wrote: Because the alternative is recognizing that a First Cause is inescapable, and potentially, that opens the door to the idea of God again. This is exactly what dismayed so many cosmologists when the "red shift effect" was finally accepted as necessary science, back in the '60s. You can find no end of them inveighing that this would open the door to Creationism again.

As I said before, a quantum explanation has the potential to eliminate a first cause.

That's the hope of those who postulate it, I suppose. But it's not a great credit to the theory. After all, a theory that supposed that the world was created by magic dust would also eliminate the need for a first cause...but I don't suppose that recommends a belief in magic.

The key thing is what real evidence there is for it. QM is presently no more than a speculation.

A universe merging from nothing makes no sense...

Yes, that's the point.

But QF is also a causal explanation. Look back at the critique from the NYT, and you'll see that an objection to QM is that it implies "laws" that need to be accounted for, or how does a QV produce order and complexity? After all, how can "nothing" have "laws"?

A universe from nothing makes no sense at all and I am sure Krauss knows this.

I'm sure he does, too. Which is why I suspect his title was merely dishonest in the first place.

I do, but a universe from something can be empirically demonstrated.

Of course. But then the "something" also needs its own explanation, and the causal chain reappears. And, as we can see mathematically, there cannot be such a thing as an actual infinite regress of such explanations.

The upshot, then, is that the QM explanation merely moves the problem back one step, if it relies on a "something," and doesn't represent any kind of solution at all to the First Cause necessity. And I suspect Krauss also knew that.
[/quote]

Most of what we have been talking about is immaterial now you know that Krauss is NOT postulating a universe from nothing.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:46 am Most of what we have been talking about is immaterial now you know that Krauss is NOT postulating a universe from nothing.

Well, Krauss is irrelevant, you mean. What we've seen is that his theory doesn't give us a universe from nothing, so all he's done is speculate one additional causal step backward, not ended the chain of necessary explanations, and definitely not helped us to believe in an eternal universe.

So we're back to the problem of the infinite causal regress...it's still impossible.

Recent exchanges between Immanuel Can and Ginkgo are interesting and I wonder what God's agency in the creation of nature has to do with right and wrong.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 9:30 am Recent exchanges between Immanuel Can and Ginkgo are interesting and I wonder what God's agency in the creation of nature has to do with right and wrong.

Probably nothing.
I get the impression that you are a pantheist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:28 am And, as we can see mathematically, there cannot be such a thing as an actual infinite regress of such explanations.

He continues lying!

There is no First Cause - it's turtles all the way down. Infinite regress.
Infinite regress is the foundation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion_theory

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:31 am

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:46 am Most of what we have been talking about is immaterial now you know that Krauss is NOT postulating a universe from nothing.

Well, Krauss is irrelevant, you mean. What we've seen is that his theory doesn't give us a universe from nothing, so all he's done is speculate one additional causal step backward, not ended the chain of necessary explanations, and definitely not helped us to believe in an eternal universe.

So we're back to the problem of the infinite causal regress...it's still impossible.

For someone who is irrelevant you have certainly spent enough pages talking about him.

I don't think it is meant to give us a universe from nothing, rather it is an attempt to sell more books with a sensationalist title.

In the video Krauss does not address the possibility of an eternal universe. Nonetheless, there is a theory that has been around for a while which posits an eternal universe. Basically it says that the universe has always existed in a quantum state. I'll get in before you and say there is no empirical evidence to support the theory at the moment, and I stress at the moment.

BTW as I said before, quantum mechanics is not speculation, it is responsible for some of the most accurate predictions in science. You seem to be having problems in accepting this.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:18 am The more I think about it the more I realize that you have this the wrong way round. A universe from something makes more sense. A universe from nothing makes no sense at all and I am sure Krauss knows this.

But a God from nothing totally makes sense, yea?

As soon as you allow for "First Cause from Nothing" (that isn't The Universe) you commit special pleading. Immanuel can't wait for you to trip over yourself so he can sell you some backdoor Christianity.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:41 am I'll get in before you and say there is no empirical evidence to support the theory at the moment, and I stress at the moment.

You are trapped in a vicious circularity you can't see (yet).

Any FUTURE theory that accounts for the ontological origin of the universe, has to account for the theory itself.

You are already trapped in a causal framework because of the arrow of time.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:42 am

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:18 am The more I think about it the more I realize that you have this the wrong way round. A universe from something makes more sense. A universe from nothing makes no sense at all and I am sure Krauss knows this.

But a God from nothing totally makes sense, yea?

As soon as you allow for "First Cause from Nothing" (that isn't The Universe) you commit special pleading. Immanuel can't wait for you to trip over yourself so he can sell you some backdoor Christianity.

Immanuel Can will be the one doing all the tripping, as exemplified by him getting the Krauss argument arse about Also, I am not in the market for some Christianity, I am an atheist.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:57 am Immanuel Can will be the one doing all the tripping. Also, I am not in the market for some Christianity, I am an atheist.

But you sure are on the market for a First Cause.

We won't call it "God" though - we'll let you pick the new label.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:41 amI don't think it is meant to give us a universe from nothing, rather it is an attempt to sell more books with a sensationalist title.

I skimmed the book a few years back on holiday; I didn't bother to settle down and tackle it properly because it seemed to me that all he was doing is postulating that the conditions that exist now, the quantum foam of 'empty space', are essentially the conditions that existed prior to the big bang. So yeah, the 'nothing' of the title is the 'empty space' we know isn't empty. But yeah, I'm sure the title helped shift a few copies.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:28 am And, as we can see mathematically, there cannot be such a thing as an actual infinite regress of such explanations.

He continues lying!

No; you're simply not understanding. That's quite different.

There is no First Cause - it's turtles all the way down.

There's a very good reason that story is told as a mockery. It's impossible. But I'm not sure how to assist you in understanding that, so I'll leave it there for now.

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:41 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:31 am

Ginkgo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:46 am Most of what we have been talking about is immaterial now you know that Krauss is NOT postulating a universe from nothing.

Well, Krauss is irrelevant, you mean. What we've seen is that his theory doesn't give us a universe from nothing, so all he's done is speculate one additional causal step backward, not ended the chain of necessary explanations, and definitely not helped us to believe in an eternal universe.

So we're back to the problem of the infinite causal regress...it's still impossible.

For someone who is irrelevant you have certainly spent enough pages talking about him.

It was actually you who brought him up and referred to him repeatedly. I merely responded. I already knew of his book and the criticisms it had incurred. But I thought perhaps you had not heard the critiques. That's all.

I don't think it is meant to give us a universe from nothing, rather it is an attempt to sell more books with a sensationalist title.

I absolutely agree.

But with no "nothing" explanation at the beginning, Krauss has not helped our discussion at all. Only if he had a "nothing" at the start of things would his argument be relevant. And he doesn't deliver.

I'll get in before you and say there is no empirical evidence to support the theory at the moment, and I stress at the moment.

Fair enough.

But then, by definition, it's not science. It's philosophical speculation, just as the critics have already said. And I think we are unwise to pronounce in advance that empirical evidence will appear in the future. After all, how would we know, absent any empirical evidence?

So I think Krauss is a dead end with regard to the First Cause issue, and we can leave him now. You're right: we've already spent too long flogging a dead horse there.