Something From Nothing?

[Abracadabra]

Very interesting conversation to be sure.

I would love to be able to personally ask Richard Dawkins a few questions.
I tend to agree with Lawrence Krauss' views stated at 31:48 - 32:35 on this video.
I have reasons for believing this myself, and I would love to pass my ideas on this past Richard Dawkins.
Clearly by Richard Dawkins' reaction to Krauss' suggestion, Dawkins doesn't seem to think that Krauss' ideas on this are worthy of consideration.
Actually I should try to pass my ideas past Lawrence Krauss since he clearly favors this view to begin with. He says that he gets emails, I'll have to see if I can find his email address. I actually have support for his views.

Lawrence Krauss also makes some really good points from 34:39 to 42:49 on a different topic altogether namely the scientific ability (or inability) to predict such things as the value of dark energy, etc.

56:00-01:00
Start of religion discussion: addresses specifically a personified medieval picture of God.

A non-personified God?
01:00 - 01:05 Lawrence Kauss takes a similar stance as myself on the concept of "God" here (i.e. cannot be disproved)

However, both Dawkins and Kauss seem to still be thinking of "God" as an eternal all-knowing personified magician not unlike the personified God of the medieval picture. So they haven't fully addressed my concerns in this video at all. They are simply addressing concepts of spirituality that are incompatible with my thoughts on mystical spirituality.

From the sounds of these two men I think Kauss would be far more open to my ideas than Dawkins would be.

01:37 - 01:39
Ironically here Richard Dawkins himself acknowledges that self-deception has evolutionary benefits.
Thus he's basically confessing that if a person is motivated by spiritual beliefs it can indeed be a good thing (assuming, of course, that their spiritual beliefs are productive, and not destructive like the Abrahamic religions are)

How to wean people off religion?
139:30 - 1:43
Dawkins
- Just wake up and face the truth!
01:43 - 01:45
Krauss -
Try to convince people that if they become scientists they'll get rich?
Try to convince people that religion causes women to be subjugated?
(the former is quite lame. The latter may have truth, but still not be a good means for weaning people off religion)
The subjugation of women with respect to religion also focuses on religions that preach male-chauvinism (like the Abrahamic religions)
~~~~
I personally think that both of those "solutions" are naive.

On creating something from nothing:
01:51 - 01:53
Kruass - "To create stuff all you need is nothing and Quantum Mechanics!"

Assuming that 'nothing' has the information contained in Quantum Mechanics, is one huge assumption. So this whole claim that something can start from 'nothing' is not being portrayed properly by Lawrence Kauss. He's failing to fully address the presumed properties of his so-called 'nothingness' that he's starting with, and he's assuming that this nothingness must already behave in a way described by Quantum Mechanics. (that's not nothing)

So I'm not convinced of his "creating something from nothing" arguments.

I don't even need to read his book because I'm fully aware of the gravity/negative-energy ideas. That alone is not sufficient. Yet that seems to be the core of his argument. His so-called 'nothingness' must already possess a property of behaving quantum mechanically. And that's not 'nothing'.

So he doesn't sufficiently explain how something can spring forth from nothing. In fact, all he has done is explain how this doesn't violate conservation of energy. But that's a totally different issue altogether.


So he wasn't very convincing in his argument that something can arise from nothing. In fact, that very topic was a very minor part of this entire 2-hour presentation.

As much as I admire both Dawkins and Krauss, I'm afraid it has to be 'no cigar' in terms of giving a convincing explanation of how something could start from nothing.

Even the early arguments for evolution at the beginning failed miserably in that regard, because starting with physics and chemistry to get to genetics is hardly starting from 'nothing'.

Biological evolution has absolutely nothing at all to do with getting something by starting with nothing.