Wednesday, June 6, 2012

M war, here is peace

In the article “Krauss vs. the Philosophers, “, Brian Leiter wrote, "Lawrence Krauss, a physicist at Arizona State University, wrote a book on the physics of how "something can come from nothing," and thought it answered the old philosophical question to that effect.   He got lots of praise from other philosophical ignoramuses, and then along came David Albert, a distinguished philosopher of physics at Columbia University (who even has a PhD in physics), who pointed out the confusions in a rather wicked, ...

Krauss, apparently not used to be called out for his intellectual limitations, had a tantrum and called Albert "moronic," ... Various philosophers responded effectively to the tantrum, ...
This is not the first time physicists have revealed themselves to be (dare I say it?) a bit "moronic" when it comes to philosophy"

In the article “On the Origin of Everything (at The New York Times, )”, David Albert wrote,  “Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that every­thing he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. ‘I have no idea if this notion can be usefully dispensed with,’ he writes, ‘or at least I don’t know of any productive work in this regard.’  And what if he did know of some productive work in that regard? What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like? …

… 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.”

I do agree with Albert’s arguments above.
    1. We must not take the physics laws for granted.  There is a story about how they arose.
    2. The quantum vacuum is not nothingness.

In fact, the above two issues were addressed and resolved in the article “Law of Creation, “.

No comments:

Post a Comment