/lit/ - Literature

>>15241920
spent all that time on math lol when he could have just read aquinas. when will anglo stem bugmen learn.

>>15241920
Atoms appeared one day from nothing
lmao sure

>>15241920
This book makes no argument, I was highly disappointed

>>15241920
i think you meant to say that *all* of philosophy made irrelevant by state of the art science.

in the future, everything philosophers had pretensions of doing but failed to do will be done for real by physicists. exciting times.

https://iai.tv/articles/we-must-shed-our-metaphysical-assumptions-auid-1367

Didnt this guy fuck kids with epstein

>>15241964
You do not actually believe that this here is a meaningful thing or will lead to anything, right?
>cant even derive maxwells equations
>is fundamentally discrete when discrete theories violate Lorentzian symmetries and are therefore automatically false
>He is asking for help to brute force the solution based on hyper graphs with the hope that one such hyper graph will "look" like our reality.
>His hypergraph requires its own computations, and those computations would then be the unified equation, his hypergraph is not base reality and therefore not even unified physics.
A more elegant unified model would fill all space, not simply be nodes within another space.

Please tell me you're only joking anon.

>>15241920
nice science you have there mate
it would be a shame if politics disagreed with it,
wouldn't it?

>>15242008
Literally a senile retard who didn't back up anything he said with solid evidence
Also he was a fraud who fucked over rosalind

>>15241920
I bought this for $1 at a used book sale and haven't read it yet did I get ripped off?

>>15242041
all rosalind added was the x ray crystallography, she didn't realize the relevance they were sitting on her desk un-interpreted.
They should have included her as an author or recognized her contribution but this idea that she did the whole thing and was ruthlessly scooped by two idiot assholes is such a political creation.
And politics is for retard tryhards. An earnestfag pursuit.

>>15242100
So he fucked over rosalind

>>15241920
>In the New York Times, philosopher of science and physicist David Albert said the book failed to live up to its title; he claimed Krauss dismissed concerns about what Albert calls his misuse of the term nothing.[7]

>In New Scientist, Michael Brooks wrote, "Krauss will be preaching only to the converted. That said, we should be happy to be preached to so intelligently. The same can't be said about the Dawkins afterword, which is both superfluous and silly."[10]

>Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked, "Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could."[11]
And these were all from the wiki page of the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing

>>15241943
This, also Krauss is a rapists Jew

>>15242041
The scientific consensus is that racial differences in IQ are real and can’t be explained solely by environmental effects.

>>15242384
Carroll is the smartest one mentioned and, tellingly, the only one who actually likes philosophy and who studied it in undergrad.

>>15242041
You do know that the scientific consensus is on the side of /pol/, right?

>>15242041
>who didn't back up anything he said with solid evidence
just like you did now

>>15241920
Using the traditional definitions of the words something and nothing, this title makes absolutely no sense. My guess is this book is another scheme by an irrelevant scientist who needs money for booze.

>>15241920
Well, yes, when you define 'nothing' as whatever you feel like, it's pretty easy to explain how the universe came from nothing.

>>15241969
hahahaha

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/