TOF expounds on why you can't explain the universe by deciding that something is nothing...
Unlike Dawkins, who seems never to have heard, let alone understood, the classical arguments, Krauss is aware of the argument outlined by Albert and by Barr and others; and he thinks it's no fair... He feels that philosophers are trying to move the goal posts.
The problem is, it was the post-Cartesian scientists who moved the goal posts and that they "currently describe" "various versions" of "nothing" incorrectly does not change the fact that "nothing" means precisely what it says: no thing. That is, nothing is not a particular sort of thing any more than "no one" is a particular sort of person.
No comments:
Post a Comment