/sci/ - Science & Math

Krauss writes that nothing is without space or time, but still with certain fundamental laws that give rise to space and time (not sure in what sense these laws could involve fields).

So in that way, nothing for Krauss is not a complete absence, but includes, at the very least, some laws.

On the other hand, there is no fundamental (a priori) law that says that physical laws cannot arise from nothing (nothing in the absolute sense). The "law" that something cannot come from nothing is not a real law at all, in that it isn't proven (or provable).

>>6238045
Krauss' a giant troll and a fraud.

Nothing doesn't exist. This creates a paradox because it is essential for everything else to exist.

the moronic philosopher shouldve read wittgenstein instead of st augustine

Why the fuck were they debating?

It's a physicist vs a philosopher.

The philosopher's interpretation is going to be (obviously) philosophical and just focus on the metaphysics, whereas krauss actually makes suggestions that pertain to physics.


They might as well have a debate on time too.

>>6238108
The original criticism by the philosopher directed to Krauss was just an article, I'm pretty sure. I agree that the suggestions made in physics don't necessarily pertain to philosophy and vice versa.

>>6238108
mothergoose you are stupid go back to fit
its called metaphysics for a reason

I believe the philosophy professor clearly has too much spare time to be arguing semantics like this.

>>6238114

fuk u m8

go watch what the bleep do we know

feg

>>6238119
strawman

Philosophy: producing nothing useful since ever.

>>6238121

naw i was just straight evading.

metaphysics has no use when it comes to actual science.

this is why i hate philosophy. Especially when it's mixed with science. the end product is usually something false fueled by wishful thinking.

>>6238123
you are stupid

>>6238122
Cept, yknow. Religion(Take off the fedora, its been exceedingly important and useful in human social orders), the scientific method, amongst numerous other things.

>>6238124

and right

>>6238127
Religion is an emergent property of our social behavior, not something produced by philosophy.

Or are you implying that there was/are philosophers in animist tribes ?

I never really thought about nothing.
I maintain that it is not possible to think about nothing.
As my old guru, Slick, used to say, "Sometimes I just sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits."
(I think Slick was into transcendental meditation long before it was invented. A man ahead of his time.)

Nothing really isn't a thing that can exist.

It's an abstract idea, never able to be tested in the field.

>>6238155
Do you think that the idea of nothing could be something while nothing remains nothing?

>>6238171
Yes, just like the word fork isn't a fork.

/sci/-borgs, is Kepler not the most underrated scientist of all time?
He seems largely overshadowed by Newton etc.; I wonder how much of this can be put down to the fact that Kepler was more explicit about his neo-platonic and christian mysticism beliefs that led him to his discoveries than for example Newton was.
Underrated scientists general?

>>6238123

denying metaphysics has any "use" is a metaphysical claim, all you're doing is trying to define a position in which you no longer have to justify your argument.
This is why a little knowledge (including of science) is dangerous: we end with moronic points of view like this which take no thought for what they're saying any more

>>6238244
But thinking makes my brain hurt!

OP, which debate? Can you give a youtube link to it, or how do you know about this?

"Lawrence Krauss was recently under fire from some philosopher prof. at Columbia university (he also happens to be a PhD in theo phys)."

>>6238286

It was across a series of articles, not a live debate. Just google and you'll easily find Krauss getting his ass handed back to him by someone who is actually competent in more than one field

>>6238064

Krauss
>Describes nothing in the box, but the box is there.
Other guy
>Describes nothing outside the box

They are talking about different things but using the same word.
"Nothing" has multiple contexts. Both are right.

>>6238295
I read that article and it's retarded. The other guy just asks "where do the laws come from?"

While Krauss even admits that what he says is just speculation, a good point that he makes is that the "nothing" all the plebs know about might be just something abstract and we need to change our view of it.

Now when some schmuck comes along and asks an obvious question that misses the point, it's really retarded and not "ass-handing".

I looked up that guy and his books and he is a philosotard with tard books and crackpot physics.

So /popsci/ is having the same shitfest that we have here?

>>6238131
an "emergent property" in my experience is something which arises as a property of the whole being more than the sum of the parts, not something which is merely caused by another thing.

for instance, consciousness is speculated by some anti-reductionists to be an "emergent" property, which arises precisely because they think it to be something more than the sum of its parts (of the brain).

>>6238228
huygens is the most underrated scientist of all time

Nothing is a very difficult concept, if we think about it as the absence of something than we still draw a border btw something and nothing which makes nothing again to something because it has some properties, in this case a border. Real nothing does not really have any property!

>>6238228

definitely willard gibbs

>>6238114
>"meta" anything

>>6238077
This is correct.

The Mayan's only had a few mathematicians and they were worshiped for their abilities. Obviously, their knowledge was lacking. It's the same with physicists today. They can literally say any old garbage as long as there is some sort of internal logical symmetry inherent in the argument. Nobody will question it.

Krauss is a fucking fraudster and I hate seeing his name posted everywhere like some kind of pop sci Justin Beiber.

>>6238045
BTW I saw LK talk and he was brilliant. If you ever get a chance to see him talk, go!

Mothergoose, you still here?

What's been going on on /fit/ lately? I abandoned that board when it became overflown with feel threads about a year ago and haven't been lurking there ever since.

Any chance it's getting better? I.e. less feel shit and more actual health & fitness themes? Or should I just abandon all hope and never go back to the board that molded me into a man I am today? (no homo)