Lawrence Krauss Book A Universe From Nothing Pdf
- book pdf
- Tuesday, June 1, 2021 1:38:39 PM
- 0 comment
File Name: lawrence krauss book a universe from nothing .zip
Bestselling author and acclaimed physicist Lawrence Krauss offers a paradigm-shifting view of how everything that exists came to be in the first place. What was there before it?
- A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing
- A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing
- The Greatest Story Ever Told - So Far
- ~!PDF ~^EPub A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing TXT,PDF,EPUB
Please type in your email address in order to receive an email with instructions on how to reset your password. Where did the universe come from? What was there before it?
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing
Krauss, has been lauded to the skies by fellow atheists such as A. According to Richard Dawkins: "The title means exactly what it says. And what is says is devastating. It is of course true by definition that a creation requires a creator to be a creator is to create a creation, and to be a creation is to be created by a creator.
Krauss acknowledges that "no one but the most ardent fundamentalists would suggest that each and every [material] object is … purposefully created by a divine intelligence…"  and that "many laypeople as well as scientists revel in our ability to explain how snowflakes and rainbows can spontaneously appear, based on simple, elegant laws of physics".
Indeed, as Krauss acknowledges: "one can ask, and many do, 'Where do the laws of physics come from? Imagine finding a translucent ball on the forest floor whilst hiking. If a fellow hiker said, "It just exists inexplicably. Suppose it were the size of the universe. Same problem. The only other alternative to theism is to claim the universe has an explanation of its existence in the necessity of its own nature.
Two things are clear. Somewhere down the line of requests to borrow the book, someone had the book without having to borrow it. Likewise, argues Richard Purtill, consider any contingent reality:.
If the process of everything getting its existence from something else went on to infinity, then the thing in question would never [have] existence. And if the thing has There was something that had existence without having to receive it from something else… .
The only remaining possibilities are an abstract object or an immaterial mind. But abstract objects even granting their existence are by definition causally impotent. Therefore, the explanation of the physical universe is a necessarily existent, transcendent mind. In the face of the cosmological argument, Krauss reaches for the tired old objection at the top of the neo-atheist playbook:. Adherence to such a regressive explanatory assumption would make science impossible; which is one reason why the first-cause argument is justified in rejecting the notion of an actually infinite explanatory regress.
Krauss goes on to conflate the contrast between caused realities on the one hand and the First Cause on the other hand with a vague contrast between an "eternally existing universe" and "eternally existing creator" Does Krauss mean to embrace the possibility of an actually infinite temporal regress for the cosmos? One suspects not. Krauss objects that "Defining away the question [of origins] by arguing that the buck stops with God may seem to obviate the issue of infinite regression, but here I invoke my mantra: The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not.
Arguing and defining are not synonymous activities. Note too that the first-cause argument does "obviate the issue of infinite regression". In typical neo-atheist fashion, Krauss has little time for philosophy.
As atheist philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci muses:. It used to be that they were an intellectually sophisticated bunch, with the likes of Einstein and Bohr doing not only brilliant scientific research, but also interested, respectful of, and conversant in other branches of knowledge, particularly philosophy. For example, he argues that while the question of ultimate origins "is usually framed as a philosophical or religious question, it is first and foremost a question about the natural world, and so the appropriate place to try and resolve it, first and foremost, is with science.
In point of fact, there can be philosophical questions about the natural world, and the question of ultimate origins is one such. Trying to answer this philosophical question whilst sidelining philosophy leads to predictable results. However, one of the ways in which the universe is "whether we like it or not" is that it conforms to the basic laws of logic. To argue against the proposition that reality is logically coherent by appealing to the logically coherent statement that "The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not" is logically incoherent.
Krauss opines that "without science, any definition is just words. Such logical incoherence is one among many reasons why, as Bruce R. Reichenbach commented back in "The era is past when all metaphysical statements or arguments can simply be dismissed as silly or senseless, since they do not meet a preestablished criterion of verifiability.
Krauss has been spotted in the embrace of verificationism before. Randy Everist observes that "the [March ] debate between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig brought out some of the claims of scientism in the New Atheist community. In a way, it is highly reminiscent of Logical Positivism with A. Ayer and the old-line atheists of the early-to-mid 20th century. As Craig commented afterwards: "I am still amazed In the verificationist tradition Krauss complains that "religion and theology … muddy the waters … by focusing on questions of nothingness without providing any definition of the term based on empirical evidence"  — but of course Krauss cannot provide any definition of this criterion of meaning based on empirical evidence!
Thus Krauss falls foul of his failure to attend to philosophy when it comes to defining terms, and this failure turns the vast bulk of A Universe From Nothing into a wild goose chase in which he spends all but 4 pages cf. As atheist scientist Jerry Coyne complains: "much of the book was not about the origin of the universe, but dealt with other matters, like dark energy and the like, that had already been covered in other popular works on physics.
And without science, any definition is just words. C is clearly true by definition. To exist or to be is to be a something or other, having one or more properties. Hence, nothing can come 'out of' ie. Furthermore, if Krauss means to deny the self-evident principle of sufficient reason and claim that things can just exist or pop into being with no cause or explanation of their existence, then he has abandoned serious metaphysics indeed, he explicitly rejects metaphysics in the name of scientism.
Faced with the philosophical question of ultimate origins, Krauss simply changes the subject to discuss the scientific question of how one natural thing e. For the moment, I will assume space exists, with nothing at all in it, and that the laws of physics also exist. However, I suspect that, at the times of Plato and Aquinas, when they pondered why there was something rather than nothing, empty space with nothing in it was probably a good approximation of what they were thinking about.
As William E. Caroll writes: "The desire to separate the natural sciences from the alleged contamination of the 'word games' of philosophy and theology is not new; now, as always, it reveals an impoverished philosophical judgement.
Every discipline including science has its own technical terminology with its own history of usage that needs to be understood by anyone who wishes to be part of the ongoing conversation within that discipline. Krauss may "suspect that, at the times of Plato and Aquinas, when they pondered why there was something rather than nothing, empty space with nothing in it was probably a good approximation of what they were thinking about,"  but these suspicions are informed by his own anti-philosophical prejudice rather than by the historical facts.
Aristotle wittily defined nothing as "what rocks think about. Robert J. Spitzer notes that:. Nothing should not be thought to be a vacuum or a void which is dimensional and orientable — where you can have more or less space ; and it is certainly not a physical law. Inasmuch as the laws of physics have real physical effects, they must be considered to be something physical. Augustine argued that since God alone is Being, he willed to exist what formerly did not exist.
So he is not a mere shaper of formless and eternal primordial matter: 'You did not work as a human craftsman does, making one thing out of something else as his mind directs Your Word alone created [heaven and earth]. Therefore if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus now nothing would be in existence -- which is absurd. Indeed, Krauss himself refers elsewhere to "the classical ontological definition of nothing as 'the absence of anything'…".
Where do the rules come from? Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.
Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? As atheist Peter Atkins comments: "You have to realize that physical laws, which are summaries of observed behaviour, come into existence as a universe comes into existence You have described three gradations of nothing — empty space, the absence of space, and the absence of physical laws.
It strikes me as genuinely incomprehensible that anything — laws, energy, etc. The fundamental laws of nature … have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all. The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in A Universe From Nothing — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this.
The … elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists unsurprisingly of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory … have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place.
Case closed. End of story… Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.
Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings … amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.
When Krauss finally turns his attention to the question behind the title of his book, he recognizes "two possibilities. Either … some divine being who is not bound by the laws or they arise by some less supernatural mechanism.
Indeed, none of the laws of logic all of which science must pre-suppose on pain of incoherence has a "foundation in science" ; but so what?! Rather, it represents a willingness to recognize the simple fact that logic is undeniable and that incoherent propositions are necessarily false. As William Lane Craig says: "If the alternative to theism is to deny logic, well, it seems to me that the non-theist is in really serious trouble there — they can never again say that theists are irrational for believing what we do.
Those who argue that out of nothing nothing comes seem perfectly content with the quixotic notion that somehow God can get around this. But once again, if one requires that the notion of true nothingness requires not even the potential for existence, then surely God cannot work his wonders, because if he does cause existence from nonexistence, there must have been the potential for existence.
Genesis Belief in a necessarily existent being who grounds the potential for the existence of contingent things and who actualises that potential via a freely chosen act of omnipotence is a logically coherent answer to the question of why the physical universe exists.
Moreover, this answer is supported by the cosmological argument. Krauss anti-philosophical prejudice leads him to embrace a verificationalist stance long ago abandoned by philosophers as self-contradictory and to toy with rejecting the ultimate question of origins as meaningless.
Despite this, Krauss spends a handful of pages attempting to explain why there is something rather than nothing.
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing
Krauss, has been lauded to the skies by fellow atheists such as A. According to Richard Dawkins: "The title means exactly what it says. And what is says is devastating. It is of course true by definition that a creation requires a creator to be a creator is to create a creation, and to be a creation is to be created by a creator. Krauss acknowledges that "no one but the most ardent fundamentalists would suggest that each and every [material] object is … purposefully created by a divine intelligence…"  and that "many laypeople as well as scientists revel in our ability to explain how snowflakes and rainbows can spontaneously appear, based on simple, elegant laws of physics". Indeed, as Krauss acknowledges: "one can ask, and many do, 'Where do the laws of physics come from?
The Greatest Story Ever Told - So Far
Krauss , initially published on January 10, by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing —involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction. The book ends with an afterword by Richard Dawkins in which he compares the potential impact of the book to that of The Origin of Species — a comparison that Krauss himself called "pretentious". 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 , since if matter comes from relativistic quantum fields , the question becomes where did those fields come from, which Krauss does not discuss.
~!PDF ~^EPub A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing TXT,PDF,EPUB
Search this site. A Shadow Falls Books. A Universe from Nothing.
Register a free. Krauss pdf, Read Lawrence M. Nothing, Download Lawrence M. Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence M. Choose the book you like when you register 4. You can also cancel your membership if you are bored 5. Enjoy and Happy Reading Book Description Bestselling author and acclaimed physicist Lawrence Krauss offers a paradigm-shifting view of how everything that exists came to be in the first place.
Thankfully, Lawrence Krauss didn't listen. In fact, something big happens to you during this book about cosmic nothing, and before you can help it, your mind will.
The Greatest Story Ever Told--So Far: Why Are We Here?
Audible Premium Plus. Cancel anytime. The first book to briefly and clearly present the science of climate change in a way that is accessible to laypeople, providing the perspective needed to understand and assess the foundations and predictions of climate change. By: Lawrence M. Where did the universe come from? What was there before it? What will the future bring?
Стратмор попытался убедить Танкадо, что ТРАНСТЕКСТ - это орудие охраны правопорядка, но безуспешно: Танкадо продолжал настаивать на том, что это грубейшее нарушение гражданских прав. Он немедленно уволился и сразу же нарушил Кодекс секретности АНБ, попытавшись вступить в контакт с Фондом электронных границ. Танкадо решил потрясти мир рассказом о секретной машине, способной установить тотальный правительственный контроль над пользователями компьютеров по всему миру. У АН Б не было иного выбора, кроме как остановить его любой ценой.
За дверью послышалось какое-то жужжание, словно кабина была на месте. Она снова начала нажимать кнопки и снова услышала за дверью этот же звук. И вдруг Сьюзан увидела, что кнопка вызова вовсе не мертва, а просто покрыта слоем черной сажи.
Думаешь, надо вернуть им отчет. Она посмотрела на него недовольно. В том, что касалось Мидж Милкен, существовали две вещи, которые никому не позволялось ставить под сомнение.
Мидж посмотрела на него с удивлением. - Я вовсе не имела в виду твою жену. - Она невинно захлопала ресницами.
Но это же абсурд, - не согласилась Сьюзан. - Ни один из новых шифрованных файлов нельзя вскрыть без ТРАНСТЕКСТА. Вероятно, Цифровая крепость - это стандартный алгоритм для общего пользования, тем не менее эти компании не смогут его вскрыть. - Это блистательная рекламная операция, - сказал Стратмор.
Пауза. - Это Servicio Social de Sevilla. Вы уверены, что ваш брат приходил именно к .