Is God necessary for morality?

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:40 am Funny you should say this, Lawrence Krauss wrote a book called 'A Universe From Nothing." Within the quantum world causality does go out the window.
However, apparently Krauss doesn't actually posit a "nothing" at all. The title's a fake, really. He's promising what he doesn't even try to deliver, let alone manage to actually deliver.

Philosopher and Physicist, PhD in both, David Albert from Columbia University has said this about Krauss:


"He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.

Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true."



So I would put very little stock in that title. All Krauss has done is to back the problem up one stage, using a pure speculation to do it, and then pretend the problem has just disappeared because the BB question has a speculative cause. As for the cause of the cause, he offers nothing at all. He just leaves it dangling.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 8:56 pm
Ginkgo wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2020 11:40 am Funny you should say this, Lawrence Krauss wrote a book called 'A Universe From Nothing." Within the quantum world causality does go out the window.
However, apparently Krauss doesn't actually posit a "nothing" at all. The title's a fake, really. He's promising what he doesn't even try to deliver, let alone manage to actually deliver.

Philosopher and Physicist, PhD in both, David Albert from Columbia University has said this about Krauss:


"He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.

Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true."



So I would put very little stock in that title. All Krauss has done is to back the problem up one stage, using a pure speculation to do it, and then pretend the problem has just disappeared because the BB question has a speculative cause. As for the cause of the cause, he offers nothing at all. He just leaves it dangling.
I can't really comment on Albert's criticism of Krauss because I haven't read his book. I thought the title sounded interesting.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:13 am I can't really comment on Albert's criticism of Krauss because I haven't read his book. I thought the title sounded interesting.
Well, yes; but the dangers of such loose, sensationalist titles is that they seem to promise something that the author just does not deliver. And yet a non-reader of the book could easily imagine, from the title, that some sort of proof or evidence was being provided, and the relevant question (how could a universe come from nothing) was being answered, when in fact it was not.

This would be such a case, it would seem.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by surreptitious57 »

I have not read the book but have watched the talk he gave about it on You Tube and very interesting it was
Anyone who has not read the book or seen the talk should not be basing their opinion on just the title alone

For absolute nothing and nothing are not the same and anyone who understands this distinction would have no problem with the title
The Big Bang was quantum in origin and so it came from nothing in the classical sense which is how the word is used non scientifically

Had the title of the book or talk been A Universe From Absolute Nothing then that would have been entirely false
Even at the quantum level absolute nothing cannot exist because it would still have dimension in a physical sense
The only true state of absolute nothing is non physicality which cannot actually exist either physically or logically
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:32 am Had the title of the book or talk been A Universe From Absolute Nothing then that would have been entirely false.
I agree with that. But the title's still very misleading, for the very simple reason that "absolute nothing" and "nothing" are not distinct in normal usage.

Nobody says, "I'll pay you nothing for that car...except $50,000," or "There's nothing in that room...occupied by three elephants and a dozen circus clowns." :D

Nothing means nothing, no-thing. If Krauss wanted anybody to think otherwise, he should have chosen another title altogether. And titles are chosen carefully, not just by writers but by editors and publishers as well. Everybody knew the title was sensational, and that's the way they wanted it to be. It helps sales, even if it impairs truth.

So false it was.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 5:00 am
Ginkgo wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:13 am I can't really comment on Albert's criticism of Krauss because I haven't read his book. I thought the title sounded interesting.
Well, yes; but the dangers of such loose, sensationalist titles is that they seem to promise something that the author just does not deliver. And yet a non-reader of the book could easily imagine, from the title, that some sort of proof or evidence was being provided, and the relevant question (how could a universe come from nothing) was being answered, when in fact it was not.

This would be such a case, it would seem.
As stated in a previous post, we live in a flat universe. In such a universe the total energy is nothing/zero. This is because the negative energy of gravity balances out with the positive energy of matter. Taken this way it is possible to see that such a universe can begin from nothing. As I said before, I haven't read the book so I am only guessing.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:44 pm Taken this way it is possible to see that such a universe can begin from nothing. As I said before, I haven't read the book so I am only guessing.
Well, that's not quite Lawrence Krauss's proposed 'solution.' His requires a "something" to be called a "nothing."
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 2:06 pm
Ginkgo wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:44 pm Taken this way it is possible to see that such a universe can begin from nothing. As I said before, I haven't read the book so I am only guessing.
Well, that's not quite Lawrence Krauss's proposed 'solution.' His requires a "something" to be called a "nothing."
I tend to agree that Krauss requires nothing to be something.What Krauss calls nothing is the vacuum state that appears to be empty space. According to the theory of quantum mechanics empty space is really not empty at all. Instead empty space contains quantum foam which produces particles and electromagnetic waves that pop in and out of existence. On this basis we can see that nothing is really something.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:58 am On this basis we can see that nothing is really something.
Well, I don't think we "see" any such thing. We have no reason to grant Krauss's "basis," since it's just untrue.

I also understand that there are at least 10 different speculative quantum models that are currently being floated. It looks like somebody is trying very hard to find a way to get away from the necessity of the universe having an origin -- so desperately, in fact, that they are willing to choose raw, unscientific speculation over the mathematical and empirical evidence of their eyes.

Is it just possible that their earnestness to see nothing where something exists is motivated by ideology, rather than by science?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:47 pmI also understand that there are at least 10 different speculative quantum models that are currently being floated.
That's right. There's almost as many interpretations of galactic redshift and cosmic microwave background radiation as there are of the bible.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:47 pmIt looks like somebody is trying very hard to find a way to get away from the necessity of the universe having an origin -- so desperately, in fact, that they are willing to choose raw, unscientific speculation over the mathematical and empirical evidence of their eyes.
Don't be silly, Mr Can. Any hypothesis that ignores empirical evidence can be safely ignored, for the simple reason that if there is no empirical event it accounts for, it makes no difference. String theory falls into this category. So does god. Both interesting hypotheses, but neither have come up with anything testable.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:47 pmIs it just possible that their earnestness to see nothing where something exists is motivated by ideology, rather than by science?
Yes Mr Can, and in some instances, I'm sure it is true. It is well known, for example, that the name Big Bang was a dismissive remark by the atheist Fred Hoyle, who was disturbed by the idea that the theory was first suggested by Georges Lemaître, a Catholic Priest. So yeah, it is not true that 'scientists' are never motivated by ideology. On the other hand, you cannot be a christian and not be motivated by ideology.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:47 pm
Ginkgo wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:58 am On this basis we can see that nothing is really something.
Well, I don't think we "see" any such thing. We have no reason to grant Krauss's "basis," since it's just untrue.

I also understand that there are at least 10 different speculative quantum models that are currently being floated. It looks like somebody is trying very hard to find a way to get away from the necessity of the universe having an origin -- so desperately, in fact, that they are willing to choose raw, unscientific speculation over the mathematical and empirical evidence of their eyes.

Is it just possible that their earnestness to see nothing where something exists is motivated by ideology, rather than by science?
We cannot "see" virtual particles but we know they exist because we can measure their effects. There is nothing wrong with speculation when it comes to quantum mechanics, speculation is nothing new to science. In the early stages of classical science there was much speculation about the nature of reality. Quantum mechanics is the same, it is the speculation that survives empirical observation that will go on to become the norm. I don't see ideology as having any part of this speculation. Quantum mechanics are responsible for some of the best predictions in science. When it is all said and done quantum mechanics is an empirical science.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:43 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:47 pm
Ginkgo wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 11:58 am On this basis we can see that nothing is really something.
Well, I don't think we "see" any such thing. We have no reason to grant Krauss's "basis," since it's just untrue.

I also understand that there are at least 10 different speculative quantum models that are currently being floated. It looks like somebody is trying very hard to find a way to get away from the necessity of the universe having an origin -- so desperately, in fact, that they are willing to choose raw, unscientific speculation over the mathematical and empirical evidence of their eyes.

Is it just possible that their earnestness to see nothing where something exists is motivated by ideology, rather than by science?
We cannot "see" virtual particles
No, I mean we cannot grant Krauss's premise. That's all. It's not evident or scientific.
There is nothing wrong with speculation when it comes to quantum mechanics, speculation is nothing new to science.

True, but then it's called "hypothesis." And it's not genuinely scientific at all, until it's tested and confirmed.
Quantum mechanics is the same, it is the speculation that survives empirical observation that will go on to become the norm.
And quantum theories that are unproven, which will include at the very least 9 of the current 10, will be eliminated.
I don't see ideology as having any part of this speculation.
Well, on the one hand, we have all the empirical evidence currently available, pointing to things like linear time and cause and effect. And on the other, we have pure speculation unsupported at present by any empirical evidence. Are we to take the unsupported speculation as a promissory note for future findings? If so, that would be assuming a conclusion, and not at all scientific. At worst, it would be gratuitous secular prophecy.

When a group of people wants to believe in a particular conclusion so badly that they are prepared to flush their own scientific methodology down the porcelain jug in order to keep their speculations alive, I think we can begin to suspect they are already in love with that conclusion for some reason that has nothing to do with science, don't you?
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote:
Well, I don't think we "see" any such thing. We have no reason to grant Krauss's "basis," since it's just untrue.
What basis might that be?
Immanuel Can wrote: I also understand that there are at least 10 different speculative quantum models that are currently being floated. It looks like somebody is trying very hard to find a way to get away from the necessity of the universe having an origin -- so desperately, in fact, that they are willing to choose raw, unscientific speculation over the mathematical and empirical evidence of their eyes.
What mathematical and empirical evidence might that be?
Immanuel Can wrote: Is it just possible that their earnestness to see nothing where something exists is motivated by ideology, rather than by science?
Why would they want to see nothing?
Immanuel Can wrote: No, I mean we cannot grant Krauss's premise. That's all. It's not evident or scientific.
I haven't read his book, so what is not evident or scientific?
Immanuel Can wrote: True, but then it's called "hypothesis." And it's not genuinely scientific at all, until it's tested and confirmed.
Obviously.
Immanuel Can wrote: And quantum theories that are unproven, which will include at the very least 9 of the current 10, will be eliminated.
This may well turn out to be the case, but that is nothing new to science.
Immanuel Can wrote: Well, on the one hand, we have all the empirical evidence currently available, pointing to things like linear time and cause and effect. And on the other, we have pure speculation unsupported at present by any empirical evidence. Are we to take the unsupported speculation as a promissory note for future findings? If so, that would be assuming a conclusion, and not at all scientific. At worst, it would be gratuitous secular prophecy.
If you are talking about quantum mechanics then this is untrue. As I said before, quantum theory provides us with some of the most accurate predictions in all of science. You are setting up a false dichotomy between classical science and quantum mechanics.
Immanuel Can wrote: When a group of people wants to believe in a particular conclusion so badly that they are prepared to flush their own scientific methodology down the porcelain jug in order to keep their speculations alive, I think we can begin to suspect they are already in love with that conclusion for some reason that has nothing to do with science, don't you?
Not really. I think you have an aversion towards quantum mechanics.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 12:42 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Well, I don't think we "see" any such thing. We have no reason to grant Krauss's "basis," since it's just untrue.
What basis might that be?
That we agree to call a "something" a "nothing," and that we imagine his theory is a sort of truth. It's just a speculation, after all, and one not even amenable to scientific testing. We could call it, at most, a very preliminary intuition, so we don't owe it much credence...at least yet.
Immanuel Can wrote: I also understand that there are at least 10 different speculative quantum models that are currently being floated. It looks like somebody is trying very hard to find a way to get away from the necessity of the universe having an origin -- so desperately, in fact, that they are willing to choose raw, unscientific speculation over the mathematical and empirical evidence of their eyes.
What mathematical and empirical evidence might that be?
Empirically, things like everyday exhibitions of causality, on which you and I count for our daily lives, and upon which science itself rests, or the linear nature of time, or the expansion of the universe, or entropic decline. Mathematically, that if these things are so, then infinite regress of causes is utterly impossible.
Immanuel Can wrote: Is it just possible that their earnestness to see nothing where something exists is motivated by ideology, rather than by science?
Why would they want to see nothing?
Because the alternative is recognizing that a First Cause is inescapable, and potentially, that opens the door to the idea of God again. This is exactly what dismayed so many cosmologists when the "red shift effect" was finally accepted as necessary science, back in the '60s. You can find no end of them inveighing that this would open the door to Creationism again.

The same happened to Thomas Nagel the Atheist, when he dared to question evolutionism in "Mind and Cosmos." The establishment came down on him like a ton of bricks...not because he was a Creationist (he declared in his final chapter that he was hoping for a new Materialist paradigm to emerge, and only felt that the current Progressivist paradigm was inhibiting its emergence) but because they felt he opened the door to Creationism again, and lent comfort to that view.

If you recall, they went after Thomas Kuhn in a similar way, after he published "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

Here's their ideological concern: a universe emerging from nothing would resolve the dilemma, and once and for all eliminate Creation. So anybody who actually proves that it happened that way would be first in line for the Nobel Prize, since the ideological motive is so strong for absolutizing the scientific pursuit itself, and also, as we might admit, against facing God.
Immanuel Can wrote: No, I mean we cannot grant Krauss's premise. That's all. It's not evident or scientific.
I haven't read his book, so what is not evident or scientific?
You see in the NYT review. No proof, and no possibility of proof. Just a speculation.
Immanuel Can wrote: And quantum theories that are unproven, which will include at the very least 9 of the current 10, will be eliminated.
This may well turn out to be the case, but that is nothing new to science.
Absolutely. But it speaks against holding to any explanation involving quantum conjecture until there is some science to support it. That is, at least, what a scientist should do.
Immanuel Can wrote: Well, on the one hand, we have all the empirical evidence currently available, pointing to things like linear time and cause and effect. And on the other, we have pure speculation unsupported at present by any empirical evidence. Are we to take the unsupported speculation as a promissory note for future findings? If so, that would be assuming a conclusion, and not at all scientific. At worst, it would be gratuitous secular prophecy.
If you are talking about quantum mechanics then this is untrue. As I said before, quantum theory provides us with some of the most accurate predictions in all of science. You are setting up a false dichotomy between classical science and quantum mechanics.
I'm not "setting it up". I'm just pointing it out.
I think you have an aversion towards quantum mechanics.
I have a skepticism about unproven and inherently unprovable theories. Don't you?

I should think so.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: That we agree to call a "something" a "nothing," and that we imagine his theory is a sort of truth. It's just a speculation, after all, and one not even amenable to scientific testing. We could call it, at most, a very preliminary intuition, so we don't owe it much credence...at least yet.
I think it is the other way round, that we agree to call to call "nothing" a "something", this would make more sense. When Krauss talks about nothing he is probably talking about the quantum vacuum space, strictly speaking there is something rather than nothing.
Immanuel Can wrote: I also understand that there are at least 10 different speculative quantum models that are currently being floated. It looks like somebody is trying very hard to find a way to get away from the necessity of the universe having an origin -- so desperately, in fact, that they are willing to choose raw, unscientific speculation over the mathematical and empirical evidence of their eyes.
I think you have a aversion to quantum mechanics because it postulates no need for a first cause.
Immanuel Can wrote: Is it just possible that their earnestness to see nothing where something exists is motivated by ideology, rather than by science?
As I said before, it is the other way round.
Immanuel Can wrote: Because the alternative is recognizing that a First Cause is inescapable, and potentially, that opens the door to the idea of God again. This is exactly what dismayed so many cosmologists when the "red shift effect" was finally accepted as necessary science, back in the '60s. You can find no end of them inveighing that this would open the door to Creationism again.
As I said before, a quantum explanation has the potential to eliminate a first cause.
Immanuel Can wrote: Here's their ideological concern: a universe emerging from nothing would resolve the dilemma, and once and for all eliminate Creation. So anybody who actually proves that it happened that way would be first in line for the Nobel Prize, since the ideological motive is so strong for absolutizing the scientific pursuit itself, and also, as we might admit, against facing God.
A universe merging from nothing makes no sense, it should be a universe merging from something, i.e. quantum fluctuations.
Immanuel Can wrote: No, I mean we cannot grant Krauss's premise. That's all. It's not evident or scientific.
The more I think about it the more I realize that you have this the wrong way round. A universe from something makes more sense. A universe from nothing makes no sense at all and I am sure Krauss knows this.
Immanuel Can wrote: I have a skepticism about unproven and inherently unprovable theories. Don't you?

I should think so.
I do, but a universe from something can be empirically demonstrated.
Post Reply