2 of 9
2
A universe from nothing… BS
Posted: 12 January 2012 01:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
eucaryote - 11 January 2012 06:46 PM

See A universe from nothing

From nothing, according to the quantum law, something will appear, that’s the simple answer, you can’t put a lid on it.

Vaccum fluctuations are also extremely well verified over and over in many different experiments and it causes all sorts of effects that we measure.

Ah, so nothing = quantum fluctuations.

If we are going to pick a physical object as the definition of nothing, why not balloons? Why not balloons = nothing? Then a clown holding 50 ballons is holding absolute nothingness and he could write a book about how he has explained the universe.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 01:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
softwarevisualization - 11 January 2012 09:51 PM

srrr,

I said red herring where I mean strawman. My error.

My point still stands. Sorry.

No where did anyone make the claim that “because religious people don’t like it, therefore it’s true”.

Yet you accused Kraus of just this claim in your first post, part A,  as I have repeatedly pointed out.

You’ve said a lot of new things, but you still haven’t cleaned up after your original remarks. You original A is a strawman argument. Either admit this to be the case or defend yourself by citing where Kraus did say this.

Sorry, i fully debunked your point and provided Krauss’ exact quotes. Just saying “strawman” and “red herring” just doesnt cut it. If you got any arguments, feel free to post them.


Anyone else want to defend Krauss?

[ Edited: 12 January 2012 01:34 AM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 02:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22

Heres another bit from Hawkings:

Other philosophers do not believe its techniques can aim so high. Some scientists think a more mathematical approach than philosophy is needed for a TOE, for instance Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time that even if we had a TOE, it would necessarily be a set of equations. He wrote, “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

softwarevisualization - 11 January 2012 11:47 PM

Really, we can’t use our ordinary language to represent reality. That’s why we use math.

Yes and they key word is “math”. Krauss has admitted that math does not support his ideas. Also, math is conceptual (it takes place in conscious minds).


The confusion for many starts at the very root of physics, with “energy”. So many people (even scientists) believe energy actually exists out there, while in fact energy is an abstract concept. Then they think “hmm i can do some cool tricks with energy, like -1 + 1 = 0! wow the universe came from nothing!”. The moment you make such a mistake, you are (most often without realising it) off into platonic idealism.

[ Edited: 12 January 2012 02:34 AM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 05:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

Eucaryote

Your son’s a lucky guy. He must have been raised right !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 05:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

Sorry, i fully debunked your point and provided Krauss’ exact quotes. Just saying “strawman” and “red herring” just doesnt cut it. If you got any arguments, feel free to post them.

Ahhh I love this technique on the part of trolls. Simply deny the facts, then raise your hand up as the winner.


Let’s see if anyone else believes you “debunked” my point.


At this time:  08 January 2012 07:28 AM   the original statement you made was this:

My response:
A. whether (religious) people dont like something is irrelevant, and adds no support to the opposite.

To which I replied at 10 January 2012 05:58 AM with :

But he didn’t say it did add support. So what you’re doing is creating a “strawman” argument. You set up a strawman which you yourself create (your opponent never said X, but you claim he did say X) then you courageously knock X down ! You win! (Not!)

Then you came back to me with this, the rebuttal you refer to above. Let’s see how many other established commenters on this thread other   than yourself consider this to be a rebuttal to my very specific point.

Sam Harris specifically asked him:

“Is there any physical reason to believe that such nothing was ever the case? Might it not be easier to think about the laws of physics as having always existed?”

Krauss respons that “the universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not” and that “there is no model”. He basically admits his own idea is crazy and there is no reason to think its true.

He admits there is no model. There is no math. Then he tries to support his argument by saying that math can model such a universe. How does he know there can be such a model then? Furthermore, if the universe operates according to such a model, then why say it is nothing. Math is math. Math is not “nothing”.

Commenters?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 09:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
softwarevisualization - 12 January 2012 10:44 AM

Ahhh I love this technique on the part of trolls. Simply deny the facts, then raise your hand up as the winner.

Looks like you just didnt read my post. Here: http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/16469/#220288


If you still dont see it (this is the 3rd time i mention it…), just look at the quotes from Krauss that ive bolded.

Let’s see how many other established commenters on this thread other   than yourself consider this to be a rebuttal to my very specific point.

Oh you want your buddies to support you huh? That always impresses me ;)

[ Edited: 12 January 2012 09:16 AM by srrr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
softwarevisualization - 12 January 2012 10:44 AM

Sorry, i fully debunked your point and provided Krauss’ exact quotes. Just saying “strawman” and “red herring” just doesnt cut it. If you got any arguments, feel free to post them.

Ahhh I love this technique on the part of trolls. Simply deny the facts, then raise your hand up as the winner.

You have to realize that you are arguing with a poorly written recursive algorithm. I think that srrr is just a poor attempt at artificial intelligence. They got the artificial part down.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 09:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
eucaryote - 12 January 2012 02:31 PM

You have to realize that you are arguing with a poorly written recursive algorithm. I think that srrr is just a poor attempt at artificial intelligence.

FIrst its alien abductions and paranormal possessions, now you think we live in the matrix?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  147
Joined  2011-05-06

I’ll take eucarote’s comment as a “no, he didn’t rebut the charge of using a strawman”.


See how it works online srrrr? You’re not your own jury!  Only broken narcissists think they themselves decide when they’ve convinced others.


You can’t bury what you said under a pile of new accusations and protestations, you can’t deny it, you can’t pretend you didn’t say it. You’re accountable.


And in this case you’re wrong. Your comment was an attempt at a strawman argument against Kraus and you’ve been caught out. Additionally, since Kraus never made the argument you “rebutted”, just wasting everyone’s time talking about it was directing everyone’s attention to a total irrelevancy, which is known as a “red herring”.


So a “strawman” argument is effectively a specialization of a “red herring argument” and if you’ve accomplished anything here, other than to take move your reputation from “honest observer / commenter” to “troll” over the course of just one topic, you’ve accomplished combining two acts of dishonest sophistry into one claim.


Congratualtions.


Perhaps now we can move onto your other confusions. But as we do, we’re not going to really look for meaningful engagement from you since you’ve shown yourself to be incapable of sustaining an honest debate with good will:

from
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/how-to-have-a-rational-discussion/

RULE 1- DO NOT INTRODUCE A NEW ARGUMENT WHILE A PREVIOUS ONE IS UNDER DEBATE.


Instead we’re going to talk ABOUT you and your confusions and use you as a good example of why religious people have so much trouble with basic reasoning about reality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 12:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  233
Joined  2011-10-22
softwarevisualization - 12 January 2012 03:24 PM

I’ll take eucarote’s comment as a “no, he didn’t rebut the charge of using a strawman”.


See how it works online srrrr? You’re not your own jury!  Only broken narcissists think they themselves decide when they’ve convinced others.


You can’t bury what you said under a pile of new accusations and protestations, you can’t deny it, you can’t pretend you didn’t say it. You’re accountable.


And in this case you’re wrong. Your comment was an attempt at a strawman argument against Kraus and you’ve been caught out. Additionally, since Kraus never made the argument you “rebutted”, just wasting everyone’s time talking about it was directing everyone’s attention to a total irrelevancy, which is known as a “red herring”.


So a “strawman” argument is effectively a specialization of a “red herring argument” and if you’ve accomplished anything here, other than to take move your reputation from “honest observer / commenter” to “troll” over the course of just one topic, you’ve accomplished combining two acts of dishonest sophistry into one claim.


Congratualtions.


Perhaps now we can move onto your other confusions. But as we do, we’re not going to really look for meaningful engagement from you since you’ve shown yourself to be incapable of sustaining an honest debate with good will:

from
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/how-to-have-a-rational-discussion/

RULE 1- DO NOT INTRODUCE A NEW ARGUMENT WHILE A PREVIOUS ONE IS UNDER DEBATE.


Instead we’re going to talk ABOUT you and your confusions and use you as a good example of why religious people have so much trouble with basic reasoning about reality.

Why dont you just admit that you were wrong, is that so hard? But you know im a nice guy, you dont have to admit it to me. Ill just accept it and itll be our little secret ;)


Btw, if you truly believe that people ganging up in an online forum somehow implies that their argument is valid, then you must also believe that planet earth is 6000yrs old. Thats what the gangs in the creationist forums will tell you.


Your refusal to address my arguments against Krauss is not my problem. It simply means my arguments remain unchallenged. Now you might claim that you have some powerful secret counterarguments, but that you will never tell them because of reason X or reason Y, but thats just a variation of “i can levitate but i wont show it to anyone”. Who’s going to believe it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 01:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2011-10-18

“Then ignore the “plato” part. Its still idealism. Math is conceptual, concepts are thoughts, thoughts are had by a thinking being. So you see that a fundamentally mathematical universe is a form of idealism. Just like the idea that the universe is a dream.”

That is just it! These statements “the universe springs from nothing” are very ironic because what they are calling nothing is really perception/experience/consciousness. They have to term it nothing because it cannot exist under their paradigm in which matter is EVERYTHING and experience is NOTHING. What is really being revealed is that the physical universe springs from perception!

Perhaps they have confused the nothing for the everything and the everything for the nothing.

Haha Srrr is indeed a legend! Great arguments. This is very exciting stuff.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
SoldatHeero - 12 January 2012 01:07 PM

What is really being revealed is that the physical universe springs from perception!

Wow! You’ve discovered pure solipsism! How exciting!

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 07:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2011-10-18

No actually it isn’t, not at all. Solipsism is the view that only my mind exists. My view is that perception is fundamental in nature, not MY personal perception but indivisible and universal perception. You really don’t know your philosophy do you?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 08:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20
SoldatHeero - 12 January 2012 07:57 PM

No actually it isn’t, not at all. Solipsism is the view that only my mind exists. My view is that perception is fundamental in nature, not MY personal perception but indivisible and universal perception. You really don’t know your philosophy do you?

Read your own quote. It’s not what you said. I know the philosophy quite well. You’re not the 1st idiot I’ve come across.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 January 2012 08:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  22
Joined  2011-10-18

Hah your a joker. To claim matter is an illusion does not automatically imply I am the sole mind in existence.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 9
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed