"That's not nothing"

[MindForgedManacle]

Krauss doesn not claim quantum foam is absolute nothingness. That's a philosophical term, not a scientific one. He explains, in effect, that when he says 'X', he means 'X1', which in reasonable discourse would get you out of a charge of equivocation which is a form of using unclear language in order to deceive. But if you feel butthurt about it, I'm sure he's got a website or a blog where you can register you dissatisfaction. He'll probably be interested in your explanation of how he's using the equivocation fallacy when he's precisely defining his terms. A casual observer might think there's no fallacy involved, just you not liking his choice of words.

I did not say Krauss said that. I said Krauss calls it nothing, and then equivocates to answer the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" Clearly in that case, the apologist posing the question to him is asking him "Why does anything exist?" To respond to that with "Well it's because nothingness is unstable" IS an equivocation fallacy. He's answering their question by changing the meaning of "nothing".

It's not about being butthurt, it's that Krauss is playing a shell game that was really just to sell books, but is clearly absurd in terms of ontology.

Maybe I am wrong, I'm no professional philosopher. However, as far as your explanation for WHY I'm wrong, I don't see any issue at all with saying non-existent things have the property of non-existence, and I don't see how it's absurd to say so. What would be absurd would be to say that non-existent things DON'T have the property of non-existence, because that would mean they exist.

Because having properties denotes existence. So "having" the property of "not existing" is a contradiction in terms. Things that don't exist have no properties.

That's what people in the logic biz call 'an unsupported assertion'.

They actually call it a rational inference. If something exists, it can't be balanced against something we deem to be its opposite, and then claim they don't exist. If two people are pushing an object from opposite sides, and the relevant forces are perfectly balanced out, are you really going to say the two aren't exerting any force on the box at all?

Apparently that is not an absolute requirement. But maybe I'm wrong. If it's an absolute requirement, and you know that, surely you can demonstrate it. Because there certainly SEEMS to be a phenomenon that doesn't require there to be something for something to happen.

You are wrong. Even with quantum "foam", there is something which "fizzes". It is just an obvious contradiction in terms to say "There isn't anything, and yet fizzing is going on." "Fizzing" (or any process) can only refer to the action of some existing thing. Unless you're going to say non-existent things can do actual actions?

It's an observable effect (NOT the observer effect...) in quantum mechanics, not epistemology. I know it sounds like epistemology because it concerns what we can know, but it's physics.

I know what the uncertainty principle is. I'm saying it's a barrier with respect to our ability to know something, i.e epistemic.

No kidding. But where do they come from? Evidence says nowhere.

Well if you're saying they're a thing, then you can't agree with your earlier statement that "Apparently that is not an absolute requirement. But maybe I'm wrong. If it's an absolute requirement, and you know that, surely you can demonstrate it. Because there certainly SEEMS to be a phenomenon that doesn't require there to be something for something to happen."

And I didn't say or ask anything about where they came from.

Making an unsupported assertion is not what I consider dealing with something. YMMV.

Unsupported? I'm sorry, but giving an explanation - which I did and you conveniently left out - is not an unsupported assertion, especially when I demonstrated that it makes you contradict yourself:

Not having a property is not itself a property. Otherwise I could, under that paradigm, say all non-existent things have the property of non-existence. But having properties denotes existing, hence demonstrating a contradiction in your account.

Can't you even come up with two examples that don't make your point?

Can't you even make a coherent objection? You've reduced yourself to saying that non-existence things have properties. Following it up with a non sequitur is doesn't help you.

Adding more unsupported assertions to your claims doesn't make them more supported.

Maybe you're right, but the reasons you're giving for being right don't support that hypothesis.

Okay then tell me this: Do you, as I, believe God doesn't exist? If so, under this silly ontology you've halfheartedly defended, do you say God has properties? If so, how is that coherent? The $100 bill I imagine in my pocket doesn't have the value of an actual dollar bill, because it doesn't exist. IF it existed, it would, but it doesn't, so it doesn't have any properties.