I still haven’t read Lawrence Krauss’s recent book, A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing?, but it’s been generating controversy in the US, with a philosopher, David Albert (who has a degree in theoretical physics) taking a very critical view. Here’s an interesting interview with Krauss on the subject of this criticism, conducted by Ross Anderson.

I want to start with a general question about the relationship between philosophy and physics. There has been a fair amount of sniping between these two disciplines over the past few years. Why the sudden, public antagonism between philosophy and physics?

Krauss: That’s a good question. I expect it’s because physics has encroached on philosophy. Philosophy used to be a field that had content, but then “natural philosophy” became physics, and physics has only continued to make inroads. Every time there’s a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers. This sense that somehow physicists, because they can’t spell the word “philosophy,” aren’t justified in talking about these things, or haven’t thought deeply about them—-

Is that really a claim that you see often?

Krauss: It is. Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, “those that can’t do, teach, and those that can’t teach, teach gym.” And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics what so ever, and I doubt that other philosophers read it because it’s fairly technical. And so it’s really hard to understand what justifies it. And so I’d say that this tension occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened, and they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn’t.

Full article: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/

There is a letter in this week’s New Scientist, following the old “science and religion are two completely separate spheres” line (or maybe it was in the SMH).

That might be arguable if “religion” was something that was supposed to have no effect on our lives, but it isn’t. Religionists claim that it has a profound effect on our lives, and the predominat local religion claims that its God made us in it’s own image, has a detailed interest in what we do, and can physically intervene when it chooses to.

So if this God has physical effects, it can be studied by physicists. If it doesn’t, there is no point in studying it.

As for the science/philosophy divide, there isn’t one. It’s a continuum. I do though think that some scientists should take more interest in the philosophical foundations, rather than just dismissing them.

I’ve only read half the article (I’ve been on the phone) but I’ll read the rest this evening – the extent to which one can reasonably discuss “nothing” as an alternative to the reality we have has always intrigued me, and it looks like we might be approaching an intellectual showdown on this topic, amongst academics willing to jump in the deep end :)

pfft When you postulate multiverses, big bounce, black hole generation of universe, without proof mind you, then you have to regard all these different models as musings in physics, which is philosophy.

bump

which is philosophy.
———————————-

The thing with Philosopy is… you have to think.

Which of course is impossible to measure…

In some ways it was the Enlightenment that did it, which seems a bit cruel, given that so many religious people and philosophers contributed to the Enlightenment.

bump

I’ll have more to say in this thread at some stage, but not tonight :)

At a previous incarnation this thread would be kept alive by a vibrant community.

Vale SSSF

They know where this place is. I’m quietly confident it will pick up with the passage of time. This thread will still be here :)

brett said:

At a previous incarnation this thread would be kept alive by a vibrant community.

Vale SSSF

no its because all this guff has been been recycled through the forum it generates an eye rolling response..

god didn’t make the universe because any creature of capable thought to the level of a god wouldn’t allow the levels of suffering that he has generated

lets put it this way,why would the god of some camel jockys from baghdad tell his followers to kill anyone he didn’t like? i don’t see any great mind ordering wholesale genocide because he didn’t like the lifestyle choices of various communities. you’ll find that most gods always have some provision in their teachings to end up killing something or someone.

considering god made the universe i see scant reference to science in its pages

physics didn’t make religion obsolete, reason alone did – many years ago

Yet cosmologists still conjecture on where did it all start.