Author Krause needs to be more careful distinguishing what is science and what is merely the hope or speculations of scientists. He is so desperate to eliminate any basis for religion in the universe that he overlooks those things that are supported only by his "faith" in science and not by science itself. His "what ifs" and "perhaps" thoughts are reminiscent of the show Ancient Aliens, not real science.
Only by rejecting the tools and methodology of religion ( e.g., personal faith and revelation) can he conclude there is no support for God in creation. If we rule out the tools of science in the same way (e.g. mathematics) we can conclude there is no support of science in creation. We need an approach that recognizes everyone's tools.
Learned some things I didn't know and learned some things I didn't know and learned some things I didn't know.
Probably not. Difficult subjects are often better assimilated through text.
A good review and discussion of the something from nothing theory of the big bang and the universes' evolution. As scales get smaller and smaller the concept of nothingness becomes harder to apply to space.
nothing to add
no book meets that criterion for me.
not for the scientific illiterate. Ok for the layman who has a basic grasp of the creation and evolution of the universe.
The book's title and introduction are unrelated to the book's content, which itself is just a rehash of biographical and historical facts about cosmology as a science. Except for the book's title and introduction, the question of "a universe from nothing" or "something from nothing" is a question that is not even addressed, much less answered.
Call if fraud because fraud is what it is, whenever the title and introduction of any book intentionally use marketing deception to induce a person to buy a book that they would otherwise find useless.
Learn, understand, then decide whether you accept or reject.
If you want to hear someone glorify Richard Dawkins, get this book. Otherwise, find something more informative than this junk.
Avid listener of information that defines what a mess individuals have made of society, humanity and the planet itself.
Have read a number of books on this topic and even though there was some good and new information, listening to this author was difficult. He tries to impress you with his vocabulary and makes sure you know of all his accomplishments. Ho could take some lessons from David Wilcock.
An enlightened ascetic who loves language and learning.
Nothing is more important than metaphysics, the area of investigation encompassing ideas pertaining to the ultimate nature of reality. Pardoning the pun, the notion of “nothing” is an important aspect of metaphysical theorization and explication. This explains why it is so disheartening when a scientist of the stature of Dr. Lawrence Krauss offers an exposition of the essentiality of nothingness to the nature of existence that is altogether underwhelming. Dr. Krauss can be forgiven for focusing an inordinate amount of attention on dark matter and dark energy since these cryptic constituents of the cosmos dominate its composition and because the theorist made his most important contributions to this area of the field. Dr. Krauss cannot be forgiven for ignoring the work of others, myself included. Lest this critique seem self-serving, let us be explicit and objective. Dr. Krauss attempts to make the case that the nonentity understood as nothingness is an essential element of our modern understanding of cosmology. Again, he can be forgiven for focusing on gravity (aggregately in its negative and positive guises) as among the most apparent indications of the absence of net positive mass/energy in the universe. I invoke a similar (though not identical) argument in MIND, MATTER, MATHEMATICS, & MORTALITY (M4): MEDITATIONS ON A MOMENTOUS METAPHYSICAL THEORY (Amen-Ra, 2011). However, apart from a cursory mention of the implications of electromagnetism and quantum indeterminacy, he stops at this. What is more, limiting himself to the aforementioned areas, he explains these inadequately and neglects to mention authors who have expounded more eloquently (and accurately) upon these ideas.
Contrast this with M4. In elaborating the elements of what I term “Immaterial Monism”, I discuss in detail the most momentous aspects of cosmology and particle physics pertinent to the picture of the universe as arising from nothing, being composed of nothing, and eventuating in nothing. In this ideational enterprise I give due credit to Nobel Laureate Dr. Leon Lederman. It was Dr. Lederman in his immensely entertaining work THE GOD PARTICLE who explicitly indicated the importance of the apparent observational evidence that elementary particles (i.e. quarks and leptons) are infinitesimal and, ipso facto, immaterial. This automatically implies that the fundamental constituents of matter are akin to nothingness, physical nonentities. I discuss in detail the astounding work of Nobel Laureates Dr. Kendall and Friedman for their experimental establishment of the tripartite, point-like character of the proton and the resulting “quark model” of baryonic matter. Of course I discuss Einstein and the implications gravitation. However, I buttress this discussion with the weighty words of Dr. John Barrow who explains the immaterial implications of gravitational theory with a clarity that Krauss cannot equal. Dr. Krauss does touch upon the importance of quantum mechanics. There is a glaring omission however. He does not make the crucial connection that if “material” particles can be exhaustively explained by wavefunctions, if wavefuntions are (defensibly) deemed to constitute the particles they so thoroughly describe, and if wavefunctions are essentially mere mathematical constructs, the immaterial or ideal essence of matter has thereby been established. I cannot fault Krauss too much in this regard, for even Dr. J. Al-Khalili did not come to this conclusion in his monumental QUANTUM: A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED. As far as I know (and, trust me, I have searched ceaselessly), I am the fist and (evidently) only theorist who has explicitly made this conceptual connection. This is not the only quantum oversight Dr. Krauss commits. Can anyone discuss the concept of creation coming from a quantum “flux” in the void without being beholden to the insights of Dr. E. Tryon, and giving proper credit thereto? I think not. Again, Krauss cursorily comments on the interrelationship between electromagnetism and immateriality but his exposition is encumbered and convoluted. Contrast this with Dr. Michio Kaku’s concise and compelling description in PARALLEL WORLDS and you will assuredly affirm the Author’s opinion. Moreover, to this description Dr. Kaku adds an additional element: the fundamental physical property of spin. The net-zero spin of the universe implies its emergence from a state of nothingness according to Kaku’s analysis.
Without delineating Dr. Krauss’ didactic deficits excessively, it must be mentioned that M4 does not neglect to discuss the importance of the Higgs Boson and its implications for immateriality. This the Author does with the indispensible explanatory aid of Dr. Lederman and Dr. Brian Greene. To his credit, Dr. Krauss does discuss the crucial concept of the cosmological singularity. However, he does so from the vantage of the admirable Monseigneur Dr. Georges Lemaitre, whose ideas are appreciably antiquated. Contrast this with the Author’s discussion in M4, wherein the rigorous reasoning of Drs. Hawking and Penrose is presented and the attending implications for immateriality explained explicitly.
Finally, Dr. Krauss falters philosophically. It will not do to hide behind the fact that he is not a philosopher. Do not philosophers have something important to say about the nature of nothingness and its metaphysical meaning? I think so—Dr. Krauss does not. This is why the Author devotes an entire chapter of M4 to “Ideational Antecedents”, doling several separate sections to philosophers that have made interesting (if ultimately questionable) contributions to the discussion of the notional necessity of nothingness. In short, Dr. Krauss does not offer a coherent metaphysical system that integrates the idea of nothingness as is true of the Author’s theoretical framework, Immaterial Monism. Much less does Dr. Krauss offer any psychological solace for the forlornness that the ideological acceptance of existential nothingness can engender, especially among “infidels”, atheists, agnostics, and skeptics—presumably his target audience. No wonder Dr. Dawkins ends the Afterword of the bleak book in such dejection and despair. [At least Richard Dawkins can derive some satisfaction that his depressing words were read by the exemplary orator Simon Vance. Someone with questionable judgment thought it best to have Dr. Krauss read his own work. This only added insult to injury.] To all who wish to acquire an accurate, illuminating, edifying understanding of the all-important idea of the immaterial essence of reality, I unapologetically extend an invitation read to M4. If Dr. Krauss and Dr. Dawkins have intellectual integrity (and I do not doubt that they do) they will accept the Author’s intellectual overture.
Dr. Nun Sava-Siva Amen-Ra
Damascus, MD USA
too much time debating religious people--not what I get a book on cosmology and physics for. I already know there's no god and no afterlife.
foo much time name dropping (my good friend Dawkins etc. etc. etc.)
Krauss is a poor reader (and not a terribly good writer)--almost anyone would have been better as reader. Vance is excellent but he just had a boring afterword (basically a mutual admiration society exercise) by Dawkins to read.
- extremely biased and subjective
- full of trivia. The only new thing was the dark energy and well he does not tell what is dark energy except a name. Apparently they could not justify the flatness of the universe and they just made up the dark energy.
- Irrelevant chapter names and even worse quotes at the beginning of each chapter. One quote was from Donald Rumsfeld saying there are unknown unknowns!!!!!!!!
Was a total waste of money.