Hello readers, long time no vicarious mental contact. You’ve been waiting with bated breath I see. I appologize for my long hiatus, but work and school seems to take precedence in my life. As do my real life contacts, much to my co-incident chagrin and exuberance.
I am reading through “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence M. Krauss and have a lot brewing in my mind to discuss. The most interesting piece of the book, from a philosophical view, is in the introduction of the book were Krauss discusses differing conceptions of “Nothing”. He seems to imply that “Nothing” has attributes and therefore can be considered to be within the realm of natural inquiry; that nothing is actually something. This becomes problematic to many ontologies, though I think this idea of the many concepts and kinds of nothing is quite helpful. And does explain why we are actually able to speak of “nothing”, nothing, and No-thing.
Regardless of your point of view, the idea of nothing (idea here used to denote the totality of the concepts espoused by people, though don’t hold me to that for I am not so rigorous) as a negation of or an opposition to something, anything, and thingness per se, is certainly of interest and a strong launching point for inquiry. Whether I will tend to believe that Krauss’s accusation that the “Philosopher’s and Theologians'” conception of nothing with regards to the beginnings of the universe (characterized as that without attributes or scrutability, the literal absence of any-Thing) to be a category mistake will be determined in a following post when I finish the book. What chiefly interests me is the idea that the origins of the universe has a chiefly scientific solution that all other paths of inquiry must give priority is another point upon which him and I might differ.
All things considered, by the time I finish the analysis of “A Universe from Nothing” I shall be many pages and many weeks in the future. So, sit back, relax, and enjoy… if you can.