tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post2037451919513789248..comments2024-03-04T05:55:35.225-05:00Comments on Vital Remnants: Lawrence Krauss Don't Know Nothing: A review of "A Universe from Nothing"Martin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-86859345313642922822012-09-12T07:04:07.450-04:002012-09-12T07:04:07.450-04:00A clam diver may prefer breathing through scuba ge...A clam diver may prefer breathing through scuba gear to breathing on land, because the former is more useful to him. But he wouldn't be able to breathe with his scuba gear unless it were first possible to breathe on land. The marginal utility of the scuba gear could not possibly make it more fundamentally important.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-88096608403120145922012-09-11T23:44:26.757-04:002012-09-11T23:44:26.757-04:00ZPenn,
In what way is philosophy "vastly inf...ZPenn,<br /><br />In what way is philosophy "vastly inferior" to science? And can you tell me what kind of methodology you would be engaging in when you seek to answer that question?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-27590444491112067212012-09-11T23:08:59.207-04:002012-09-11T23:08:59.207-04:00Vastly inferior to science, yes. Waste of time? no...Vastly inferior to science, yes. Waste of time? not necessarily. ZPennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06458557784506441308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-88467211313040940042012-09-11T20:17:21.587-04:002012-09-11T20:17:21.587-04:00You appear to believe that the practice of philoso...You appear to believe that the practice of philosophy is a waste of time, or at least vastly inferior to science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-33157952078647817432012-09-11T17:11:49.126-04:002012-09-11T17:11:49.126-04:00I'm pretty well aware of the fact that I am pr...I'm pretty well aware of the fact that I am practicing philosophy by participating in this discussion. Why do you think I'm unaware of this?ZPennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06458557784506441308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-56906607899599500002012-09-11T07:48:02.960-04:002012-09-11T07:48:02.960-04:00Zpenn,
"Philosophy is a lame duck by compari...Zpenn,<br /><br />"Philosophy is a lame duck by comparison."<br /><br />The idea that the value of something should be measured primarily by its practical utility is a philosophical position called pragmatism. You're doing philosophy, you're just not aware of it -- and generally speaking philosophy done unconsciously is about as good as skydiving done unconsciously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-56870914258238581222012-09-11T00:15:09.305-04:002012-09-11T00:15:09.305-04:00If what you claim about the content of the book is...If what you claim about the content of the book is true, then it is certainly legitimate critisism. Like I said before, I haven't yet read it, and I only know of Krauss' via a few of his lectures (only one in which he described his thoughts on "nothing" from the perspective of modern physics). My comment on "nothing" was more in response to your reply to Singring. I ZPennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06458557784506441308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-15158410125582293992012-09-10T20:57:10.772-04:002012-09-10T20:57:10.772-04:00ZPenn,
The point of the argument isn't the de...ZPenn,<br /><br /><i>The point of the argument isn't the definition of nothing. The point of the argument is that science and the scientific method have a great track record for explaining how the universe works. Philosophy is a lame duck by comparison.</i><br /><br />That all sounds very fine, only it's not the stated point <i>of the book.</i><br /><br />This is a book review. A book is Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-76484444915961581552012-09-10T19:13:43.269-04:002012-09-10T19:13:43.269-04:00ZPenn,
The only real attack you seem to have agai...ZPenn,<br /><br /><i>The only real attack you seem to have against this book is that it doesn't answer it's tagline...</i><br /><br />It's tagline? The claim is repeated throughout the book. Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-26022668230018233022012-09-10T18:14:25.231-04:002012-09-10T18:14:25.231-04:00The point of the argument isn't the definition...The point of the argument isn't the definition of nothing. The point of the argument is that science and the scientific method have a great track record for explaining how the universe works. Philosophy is a lame duck by comparison.ZPennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06458557784506441308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-20035090081561865122012-09-10T17:04:11.017-04:002012-09-10T17:04:11.017-04:00Lucretius and other atomists thought the world was...Lucretius and other atomists thought the world was composed of atom and the void space between atoms but I think he calls it something like "vacuum," not "nihil." I am not aware of any philosopher who defined empty space as "nothing." Nothing can be predicated of nothing, and if we can call space "empty" we can predicate something of it other than nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-41605584793796402842012-09-10T16:34:09.136-04:002012-09-10T16:34:09.136-04:00Singring,
Who was it that allowed them to figure ...Singring,<br /><br /><i>Who was it that allowed them to figure out that what they had very confidently called 'nothing' for thousands of years was in fact not 'nothing' at all.</i><br /><br />Did you just not read the post at all? Who are these mythical philosopher who thought "nothing" was empty space? Give me some names.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-54517916180646025932012-09-10T15:58:56.387-04:002012-09-10T15:58:56.387-04:00'A century ago, had one described "nothin...'A century ago, had one described "nothing" as referring to purely empty space, possessing no real material entity, this might have received little argument. But the results of the past century have taught us that empty space is in fact far from the inviolate nothingness that we presupposed before we learned more about how nature works.'<br /><br />And who do philosophers have Singringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180277470418724600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-42079218079729824362012-09-10T15:37:42.919-04:002012-09-10T15:37:42.919-04:00I haven't had a chance to read the book yet. I...I haven't had a chance to read the book yet. It's on the long list of books which I'd like to read but haven't had a chance to yet. The tagline does appear to be misleading, as "why" is not really a question science tends to answer a whole lot. He appeared to explain rather clearly why he had to change the question to a "how" in order to keep it in the realm ofZPennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06458557784506441308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-30133316389810343002012-09-10T12:43:44.426-04:002012-09-10T12:43:44.426-04:00Dang, the chicken or egg question doesn't fit ...Dang, the chicken or egg question doesn't fit here because both the chicken and the egg are somethings. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-55591410385290421672012-09-10T07:34:21.128-04:002012-09-10T07:34:21.128-04:00This is certainly much ado about nothing.This is certainly much ado about nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com