Activity

Lausten,

You really don’t get this do you? Have you read the linked articles to understand what Carrier is talking about?

On 2 Feb you quoted this, which I realized only confirmed my spot on characterizations, which puzzled me at the time why you cited it, but now I realize you did not understand then or now what Carrier is even trying to say.

I want to make perfectly clear from the start that what I am doing here is not what Krauss and others are doing, which they have been rightly criticized by theologians for as missing the point.

— Carrier

So, Carrier states clearly that when he says “nothing” he is not equivocating as Krauss and others do, thus drawing justified criticism from theologians.  Krauss simply equivocated by saying that something is nothing.  Krauss never demonstrated something from nothing, he demonstrated something from something, but redefined the causal something as nothing, wrote a catchy subtitle, went around telling a lot of lies, made a lot of money, and has since been discredited as a person lacking integrity not only for this reason but for sexualizing a job interview with a young woman where he was in the power position, what a creep.

Carrier, in your quote, separates himself from the equivocation of the deceptive creep Krauss, at least in his definition of nothing.  When Carrier says “nothing” he means it in the philosophical sense, no material of any sort, no thing, not a quantum vacuum with properties that can be the material medium for particles to form and then decay.

When Carrier says that literally anything can pop out of nothing he is not appealing to a Kraussian equivocation of the quantum vacuum, rather, Carrier is claiming that literally anything can pop out of a philosophical nothing.  The “reason” Carrier gives is that he claims there is nothing in a philosophical nothing to prevent literally anything from popping out of it by no cause.

Now you send me a link to a Kraussian something from something, exactly what Carrier clearly states he is not basing his assertions on.

Theoretical physics breakthrough: Generating matter and antimatter from the vacuum

The vacuum is something.  The vacuum is material.  The vacuum has properties.  The vacuum is not a philisophical nothing and is unrelated to Carrier’s assertion.

If you can’t even respond to the words you find in the articles you link, this is not a conversation.