Our current democracies are in crisis almost everywhere. Are there any hints about why from a philosopher from the first democracy?

I look at a recent article by the physicist Sean Carroll on why there is something rather than nothing.

In this post, I discuss the sixth section of my review, where I discuss Carroll's final section. Professor Carroll agreed that there were basically five options to explain why there is something rather than nothing: creation, metaverse, principle, coherence and brute fact. In this section, he summarises his arguments before and against each of these options. He thinks that a brute fact is the best explanation.

I will review his discussion of these five possibilities, but focus most on the brute fact and creation explanations.

I look at a recent article by the physicist Sean Carroll on why there is something rather than nothing.

In this post, I discuss the fifth section of my review, where I consider why we have these laws of physics rather than something else. Carroll is right to raise this question, but unable to answer it.

I look at a recent article by the physicist Sean Carroll on why there is something rather than nothing.

In this post, I discuss the fourth section of his article, where Carroll tries to argue that the universe doesn't need an external explanation. He tries to argue from physics, chooing between a Hartle-Hawking model and an enternal universe, neither of which are satisfactory. He also discusses the ontological argument and principle of sufficient reason version of the cosmological argument. I find his discussion unconvincing.

I look at a recent article by the physicist Sean Carroll on why there is something rather than nothing.

In this post, I discuss the third section of his article, where Carroll discusses the concepts of something and nothing. And I find myself largely agreeing with him.

I reply to a reply to my previous post. I discuss the relationship between efficient causality, final causality, and potency to modern physics. In particular, I focus on what Aristotle and Aquinas meant by these terms, and make sure that we use their definitions. I also briefly touch on the topic of essentialism.

I reply to a blog post I was recently alerted to which attempts to refute the suggestion that Thomism is not refuted by modern science. While demonstrating that the author of that post neither understands Thomism nor contempoary physics.

I look at a recent article by the physicist Sean Carroll on why there is something rather than nothing.

In this post, I discuss the second section of his article, where Carroll establishes his definitions, and asks the question of what do we mean by Why and what sort of answer we might expect.

I look at a recent article by the physicist Sean Carroll on why there is something rather than nothing.

In this post, I give an introduction to the topic. I will discuss the details in future posts.

I intend to spend the next few months revising my book. Please send me any details where you think that the arguments can be improved.