On May 5, 1:51 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > So you agree that it is impossible to have something come from nothing.
> That depends on what you mean by "nothing".
> 1) Lack of matter, a vacuum.
> 2) Lack of matter and energy
> 3) Lack of matter and energy and space
> 4) Lack of matter and energy and space and time.
> 5) Lack of even the potential to produce something.

For me it's simpler, because I think that energy is only the
experience of matter, time is the experience of relating sets of
experiences to each other, and space is the experience of relating
materials to each other. Nothing only has to mean lack of experience
of any kind.

> Science has valuable things to say about how something can come from
> nothing in all senses of the word "nothing" except for #5,

I have no problem with the idea that the current form of the universe
evolved from simpler forms. I don't think that many people do. Without
#5 though, the scientific cosmology is no better than any other
creation myth. It's more sophisticated, but no closer to explaining
why anything is created at all.

> and nobody else
> can say anything about that either, not even God,

No. I say something about that. I have explained that causality itself
is an epiphenomenon of time which is an emergent property of
experience or sense which is primordial. Sense is primordial not
because I can't think of how to explain it, but because I understand
what it actually is and how it relates to nothingness and singularity/
totality. I don't need anyone else's explanation, or God.

> so that topic is a big
> bore. This is all explained in much greater detail in the book, WHICH YOU

The book explains why it's own critical flaws are boring to point out,
hahaha. That's one way of stifling dissent. My views are explained on
my website WHICH YOU HAVE NOT READ. So what?

> > I think of them as incredibly shallow questions.
> So you think explaining how from a few simple rules matter energy time and
> space turned into something while other things did not is not only shallow
> but  incredibly shallow.

Oh, it's a great achievement, just as building a house out of
matchsticks or inventing the compass or something would be, but they
aren't particularly meaningful achievements as far as addressing the
depth of our experience.

> The only logical conclusion I can form from that
> is that somebody who really believes that is a incredibly shallow person.

That would be a simplistic logic which comes to such a knee-jerk

> > it's complete hype to claim that the universe comes from nothing. It's a
> > slogan to sell books.
> I don't mind ignorance in general but there is a form of aggressive
> ignorance I find distasteful, somebody who feels they don't need to know
> all that highfalutin book learning, somebody so ignorant they don't know
> they're ignorant, somebody who feels  their comments on a well respected
> physicist's book are worth sharing with others even though THEY HAVE NOT

Do you read Christian Apologetics? Theology? Art history? Literary
theory? Do you think that you aren't ignorant, or that your ignorance
isn't distasteful? My criticisms stand. The title of the book is
horseshit, and you know it.

> > > I get the gist.
> BULLSHIT! Anybody who says these are "incredibly shallow questions" is a
> fool. Full stop.

They are shallow to me. I'm not an engineer. I don't care about the
mechanism of the universe, I care only about the biggest possible
picture. I didn't mean to imply that others can't find them deep. Some
people find the study of sand deep. I was responding to your
accusations that questioning what it really means for something to
come from nothing is shallow. Some people do find it shallow. To me
those people are missing the bigger picture, but maybe they can't help

> > > I only point out as a fact that the universe could not come from
> > something.
> I see, so the universe can't come from nothing and now it can't come from
> something either, so obviously the universe does not exist and never has.
> Isn't philosophy wonderful.

Sorry that was a typo. It should be nothing instead of something.

> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-consolation-of-p...
> >  http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-mad...
> > >There is nothing surprising in either of these articles.
> I would bet money you haven't read either one and at most skimmed them for
> 20 seconds; reading the actual book is of course out of the question, that
> would take away too much time contemplating your navel.

To me it's like arguing with a Christian fundamentalist who demands I
read the bible to understand his arguments. If your understanding of
their contents doesn't give you anything to say on the subject that is
remotely convincing or surprising to me in any way, why would I bother
chasing your views down for you?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to