Nothing = not anything

Posted on August 13, 2014, in Fun and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.

  1. Krauss restates time after time again that he is not talking about the philosophical absolute nothing. This does not stop apologists from straw-manning him all the time.
    Is it really that hard to figure out what kind of context a physicist would use when referring to nothing? It would not take a genius to figure out the most probable context a physicist would use is physics. If there is no material or energy there is nothing even theoretically measurable left. That state turns out to be unstable. That is all he is saying.

    • Hi killer4hire,

      This meme was intended to be light-hearted. However, I think the issue is not what sort of “nothing” Krauss is discussing, but that the sort of “nothing” to which he refers can help solve the Leibnizian question of why there is something rather than the philosophical “nothing”. Given that he isn’t really talking about philosophical nothing, his book really doesn’t provide an explanation for the cosmos on the level on which Leibniz’s contingency argument attempts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s