In this fourth part of a series discussing Professor Lawrence Krauss' work A Universe From Nothing, I have a look at his ninth chapter, where he begins his philosophical discussion. In particular, he attempts to show how the universe could have started from a small patch of empty space. Along the way, he tries to justify his definition of nothing as empty space.

One big debate among philosophers is on the nature of time. The A theory of time states that the division between past, present and future is an objective feature of the universe. The B theory of time views space time as a four dimensional block, and denies that there is a time that we can objectively point to as the present; rather all notions of the present time are either an illusion or merely subjective.

The A theory is the older approach, and was adopted by most people before the twentieth century. It is argued that it is supported by our common experience. The B theory approach found favour after the theory of relativity was introduced, with its support for the four dimensional universe.

In this post I firstly give my own thoughts on the topic, and secondly review the discussion by Edward Feser in his book Aristotle's revenge.

In this third part of a series discussing Professor Lawrence Krauss' work A Universe From Nothing, I have a look at his eigth chapter, where he discusses the small value of the cosmological constant, fine tuning, and the multiverse.

In this second part of a series discussing Professor Lawrence Krauss' work A Universe From Nothing, I have a look at his fourth chapter, where he takes a break from cosmology and ventures into particle physics. Krauss claims that particles can and do emerge from the vacuum. Is he right? And is the vacuum Nothing?

I begin a series discussing Professor Lawrence Krauss' work A Universe From Nothing. In this opening post, I introduce the non-contentious physical background, and give an overview of the parts of the book I want to discuss in detail.

It is claimed that quantum switches allow for indefinitely ordered causality, i.e. that you can't tell in principle whether A is the cause and B the effect, or B the cause and A the effect. This, it is claimed, causes a major problem for Aristotlean metaphysics, which depends on a definite causal order.

I answer that one needs to be careful how one defines causality. The version of causality discussed in these experiments is not the same as Aristotlean efficient causality, and thus the quantum switch says nothing against Aristotle's metaphysics.

As well as Brexit, the UK government is currently proposing a new sex and relationships education bill, with relationships education aimed for primary school (age 5-11), and sex education for secondary school (12+). Surely this is a long overdue chance to impliment some pro-family policies ...

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.