Yea he makes a mess out of English and Philosophy.
His problem is that he is not Asimov with Asimov's ability to render into literature concepts best displayed with Math.
The math of the quantum world allows "a quantum something" to randomly pop into existence. Krauss's problem is that when faced with the question "what was there before?" he can only answer "why, nothing" because that is what the math is saying. But then when asked to define Nothing he fails miserably because he has arrogantly avoided Philosophy in favor of "hard science".
He also juvenilely enjoys shocking others. One gets the impression of a teenager farting in church and then bursting into giggles at the frowns of adults. But then, many intellectuals have this problem.
The book is the most recent "mathless" cosmology book which delves into "the big bang" and universe beginnings that I know of.
From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Armstrong
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 11:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: physically off topic
On 7/12/2012 9:29 AM, Richard Seddon wrote:
> If you are at all interested there is a very recent popularization (mathless) of cosmological theory, "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence M Krauss which discusses in some detail how the universe might have gotten to the big bang. He is of the "anti-God" faith so may be offensive to some.
I heard an interview of Krauss a few weeks ago, probably on one of the NPR or PRI interview radio programs, don't remember which one. He's definitely one of those "new scientists" who clearly doesn't understand philosophy and is happy highhandedly to dismiss it. His inability to grasp the concept of "nothing" would have been funny had it been meant to be funny. As it was, he expected it to be taken seriously (turns out nothing is something, so don't trouble yourselves with that age old "why
is there something rather than nothing" conundrum....) After that
dodge, I turned the radio off, tho he may have something legit to say about cosmology once he gets on to science and off of anything else. But I'd keep an eye on the baby all the same...