Krauss and Dawkins: Something From Nothing

[Recusant]

A recent conversation between Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

I admit that I've only watched the first 10 minutes or so of this 2 hour video. I'll return to add comments later when I have taken it in, but thought I might as well go ahead and post the link here for any that might be interested.

[Davin]

I liked it. But I'm already biased because I like Krauss and Dawkins.

I can imagine the quote mining from about 21 minutes in when Dawkins said, "I'm all for intelligent design, I'd like to see more intelligent design."

[Crocoduck]

I watched it last night and thought it was pretty good.

[Recusant]

Okay, I made a few notes about the talk linked in the OP, but have been slacking, and don't consider what I have to be sufficient to make a post (it's more difficult to do a critique when one largely agrees with what's being said). So this isn't that. What I do have is a link to a recent talk given by Dr. Krauss: The Science Network | "A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing"

This could be considered a reprise of Krauss's earlier "Universe From Nothing" lecture, and one assumes it was given as part of a book-hawking tour by Krauss. I enjoy listening to Professor Krauss though, and am posting a link to this recent talk for any who share that sentiment.

[Recusant]

I know that at least a few people here might be paying a little attention to the ongoing discussion of Krauss's book. There is a new piece out on Sean Carroll's "Cosmic Variance" blog at the Discover magazine website which takes a good look at it. The piece, "A Universe from Nothing?" is also useful for those who might not have been following the "tiny brouhaha" as Carroll calls it, but would like to catch up, in that it contains links to many of the pertinent writings elsewhere.

[ablprop]

I very much enjoyed Krauss's book. Most of the criticism of his argument seems to boil down to asking, "OK, but where did THAT come from?"

Any physicist worth her salt will say that physics is still a long, long way from understanding the nature of the universe (multiverse, whatever). Remember that it was less than 15 years ago that Perlmutter, Schmidt, et al demonstrated that the universe is accelerating. Dark energy remains a mystery. Dark matter is probably less of a mystery, but still is plenty mysterious. That's a lot we don't understand.

Yet look how far physics has come! From not even knowing of the Big Bang 100 years ago to today being able to study and model it in detail, and understand how it may have arisen from very different "initial" conditions. It's been an incredible journey, and there's no sign of an end.

If David Deutsch in The Beginning of Infinity is correct, then we will never reach that end. There will always be an "OK, but where did THAT come from?" sort of question. As Deutsch says again and again, "We will always be at the beginning of infinity" in our explanations of the universe.

Is this, though, reason to fall back to the supernatural? Of course not! This is just a peculiar sort of "god of the gaps" argument in which the gap isn't between two knowns; rather, the gap occurs before the first known - and the first known keeps getting earlier and earlier as we learn more and more.

The honest answer to those who want to find their god in the "where did THAT come from?" argument is, "I don't know yet," but then to add, as Deutsch does in his book, that "supernatural explanations are always bad explanations." Why? Because they are infinitely variable. A good explanation (such as the modern big bang theory) is good because it is hard to vary and it fits the known facts. The "god" theory, whatever it might be for that particular believer, can always fit the known facts, because it is infinitely malleable to whatever facts come along. It's easy to vary, and so can explain anything. That's what makes it a bad explanation.

[Recusant]

Firesign Cosmology

"Before the beginning, there was this turtle. And the turtle was alone. And he looked around, and he saw his neighbor, which was his mother. And he lay down on top of his neighbor, and behold, she bore him in tears, an oak tree. Which grew all day, and then fell over, like a bridge. And lo, under the bridge there came a catfish, and he was very big, and he was walking. And he was the biggest he had seen. And so, with the fiery balls of this fish, one of which is the sun, and the other, they called the moon. . . .

"Yes, some uncomplicated peoples still believe this myth. But here in the technical vastness of the future, we can guess that surely the past was very different. We can surmise, for instance, that these two great balls. . . .

"We know for certain, for instance, that for some reason, for some time in the beginning, there were hot lumps. Cold and lonely, they whirled noiselessly through the black holes of space.

"These insignificant lumps came together, to form the first union: Our sun, the heating system. And about this glowing gas bag rotated the earth. A cat's eye among aggies, blinking in astonishment, across the face of time.

"Well, we were covered with a molten scum of rocks; bobbing on the surface, like rats. Later, when there was less heat these giant rock groups settled down among the land masses. During this extinct time our earth was like a steam room, and no one, not even man, could get in. However, the oceans and the sewers were simmering with a rich protein stew, and the mountains moved in to surround and protect them. They didn't know then that living as we know it, was already taken over. Thank you. [applause]

"Animals without backbones hid from each other, or fell down. Clamasaurs and oysterettes appeared as appetizers. Then came the sponges, which sucked up about ten percent of all life.

"Hundreds of years later, in the late Devouring Period, fish became obnoxious. Trailerbikes, chiggerbites, and miskwitos collided aimlessly in the dense gas. Finally, tiny edible plants sprang up in rows, giving birth to generations of insecticides and other small dying creatures. Thank you. [applause]

"Millions of months passed, and twenty-eight days later, the moon appeared. This small change was reflected best perhaps, in the sand dollar, which shrank to almost nothing in the bottom of the pool. Where even dumb amphibians like catfish laid their eggs in the boiling waters, only to be gobbled up every three minutes by the giant sea orphans and jungle bunnies, which scared everybody. And so, in fear and hot water, MAN IS BORN."

— I Think We're All Bozos on This Bus  ©1971 The Firesign Theatre

In Memoriam, Peter Bergman (1939 - 2012)

[Recusant]

I very much enjoyed Krauss's book. Most of the criticism of his argument seems to boil down to asking, "OK, but where did THAT come from?"

Any physicist worth her salt will say that physics is still a long, long way from understanding the nature of the universe (multiverse, whatever). Remember that it was less than 15 years ago that Perlmutter, Schmidt, et al demonstrated that the universe is accelerating. Dark energy remains a mystery. Dark matter is probably less of a mystery, but still is plenty mysterious. That's a lot we don't understand.

Yet look how far physics has come! From not even knowing of the Big Bang 100 years ago to today being able to study and model it in detail, and understand how it may have arisen from very different "initial" conditions. It's been an incredible journey, and there's no sign of an end.

I still haven't managed to get a copy of the book. I do agree with what you've said about the progress that has been made in cosmology in the relatively recent past. The fact that we don't have anything near a complete picture doesn't bother me at all; I'm just very happy to be around while such great progress is being made in the field.

If David Deutsch in The Beginning of Infinity is correct, then we will never reach that end. There will always be an "OK, but where did THAT come from?" sort of question. As Deutsch says again and again, "We will always be at the beginning of infinity" in our explanations of the universe.

Is this, though, reason to fall back to the supernatural? Of course not! This is just a peculiar sort of "god of the gaps" argument in which the gap isn't between two knowns; rather, the gap occurs before the first known - and the first known keeps getting earlier and earlier as we learn more and more.

Well, the Planck era is still a barrier, and likely will remain so for some time to come. People like Krauss can hypothesize, and their hypotheses may even be viable, but as far as I know there is no way to make a falsifiable statement about anything "previous" to the Planck era.

The honest answer to those who want to find their god in the "where did THAT come from?" argument is, "I don't know yet," but then to add, as Deutsch does in his book, that "supernatural explanations are always bad explanations." Why? Because they are infinitely variable. A good explanation (such as the modern big bang theory) is good because it is hard to vary and it fits the known facts. The "god" theory, whatever it might be for that particular believer, can always fit the known facts, because it is infinitely malleable to whatever facts come along. It's easy to vary, and so can explain anything. That's what makes it a bad explanation.

I see what you're saying, and again, I agree. Personally, I think that the god hypothesis is "bad" because it involves invoking an entity which appears to be superfluous to requirements.

[Recusant]

Here's another chat between Krauss and Dawkins: this one took place at Australian National University. It was held the day after Dawkins's televised encounter with Cardinal Pell; he and Krauss discuss that a bit at the beginning of the video (not making any effort to be nice about it).  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0mljE9K-gY

[Recusant]

Back to the "tiny brouhaha." I just came across a succinct yet worthy article in which Victor Stenger gives some of his opinions on the topic:

Talking Philosophy | "Nuthin' to Explain"

A more "pop" approach to this comes from Adam Franks's blog for NPR:

"Blackboard Rumble: Why Are Physicists Hating On Philosophy (and Philosophers)?"

Jerry Coyne has an update which focuses mainly on Massimo Pigliucci's blog comments ("Lawrence Krauss: Another physicist with an anti-philosophy complex").

Why Evolution is True | "Philosophy catfight!: Pigliucci vs. Krauss"

[Recusant]

Here's a thought-provoking article from last year I found in a relatively obscure journal, which relates directly to this "physics vs. philosophy" theme. The author takes as his basis the assertion by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow in The Grand Design that "philosophy is dead." It's the first paper in the journal: Qualia Volume II | "Is Philosophy Dead?" by Michael Fitzpatrick (PDF)

I like this piece because it's pretty much jargon-free, and it does a good job of examining the question. The author is a philosophy under-grad who makes a sound case for the negative in regard to the question. In fact he says that Hawking and Mlodinow, rather than striking the death knell for philosophy, are actually doing philosophy through most of their book. I doubt if his sensible approach would do much to stop this particular "little brouhaha" or "blackboard rumble," but I thought it was a good read to go along/contrast with the sniping in many of the other articles I've been posting in this thread. Not that the sniping is without a certain appeal. I think it's amusing when highly intelligent people call each other "moron" in public, as Krauss did Albert and then Pigliucci did Krauss.