I have been critical of the new atheists and Krauss seems to be a member here, but I was surprised by his book which on one level is a book with an agenda. But, thank god for credit card debt: I finally just went ahead and got five hundred dollars worth of books I wanted to read but wouldn’t have purchased short of financial indiscretion.
This book is perhaps an outrage for some, but for reasons other than the new atheism it is actually a gem of unsuspecting Kantian pre-dementia or ‘dialectic’. People don’t often make this argument, and it closes the ‘debate gap’ with a striking attempt to demonstrate this rare antinomial pole. Students of Kant become hep to the issue of the antinomies and begin to construct artificial arguments on each side of the key questions. But nothing is more convincing than to study the original instances when the debates still not seen as intractable raged over questions according to type: e.g. there is a beginning in time, there is no beginning in time, etc… The antinomies all have variants in various disguises, and here Krauss with his something for nothing argument as it were ‘de novo’ using recent physics is a moment to savor. Maybe he will emerge victorious in debate, or may someone with his grasp of physics with unravel the antinomial ‘other side’ and/or whatever. It is not everyday that a physicist with Krauss’ talents embarks on Kantian madcap. Good show.
I commented on this once already, actually, and my take was that was the not quite finished thought that if take a supposed beginning in time
‘something from nothing’ before
_____________________t=0, beginning in time
or ‘something from nothing’ after the t/0 point. This suggests a connection to one classic antinomy…
This isn’t the best way to do it, but the point is that we seem to have the same problem in physics we would have in theology.
Where in fact does anything come from?
Krauss lines up one pole of an antinomy with a lot of physics wallop. Will it crumble next to a possible mirror image?