Saturday, December 28, 2013

Lawrence Krauss Tweets A Pre-Cognitive Review of "The Principle"

I rather enjoy the irony of being told that my film is "nonsense", by a man who has not only never seen it, but who just wrote a book about how everything comes from nothing that is really something.

But I do very much appreciate Lawrence Krauss' contribution to our film. It is a hum dinger, regardless of whether one agrees with him or not.

UPDATE: Lawrence has responded, and I have asked him a very simple question.

I encourage everyone to go and have a look at the trailer.

Lawrence, it seems to me your views were quite accurately presented. 

Of course, if your objection boils down to us declining to only present views which agree with yours, well that's a bit of a problem, since there are, after all, other contributors whose views do not necessarily agree with yours.

They get to speak for themselves too.


  1. There are numerous times in recent years where Lawrence Krauss has shown there is a bias directing his statements rather than reasoned conclusions.
    "There y’go. He doesn’t want to live in a universe with a God and the bottom line is that he does not want to be judged by God. The whole idea of God clearly causes him some sort of psychological/emotional distress, so his atheist arguments can be viewed as elaborate rationalizations to justify the reality he wants to live in. It’s not that there is no evidence. It’s that Krauss doesn’t want to be judged by a God."
    "Why would Krauss team up with someone who misrepresents science? After all, Krauss said he “totally disagreed” with Dawkins approach, finding it to be “dangerous.” What’s more, Krauss said “it is vitally important not to needlessly offend certain religious sensibilities in one’s writing.” If it’s so 'vitally important' to him, why does he help Dawkins with his anti-religious propaganda?"

    "Perhaps Lawrence Krauss has had a change of heart and has become radicalized by the Gnus. Let’s trace his changing position over a relatively short period of time."

    And let's not forget about his recent debate with William Lane Craig, where his misleading statements, to put it mildly, are documented here:

    Not to mention the overall rude behavior shown in the video.

    Ow! Sunlight is the best disinfectant, but, boy, does it smart!

  2. "The Principle" is a dangerous film, since it refuses to submit to the predefined exclusion of certain hypotheses deemed unacceptable by....well, by the guys who control the discussion presently, I guess is the best way to put it.

    It is really a simple matter of justice.

    Once one is seen to have been compelled, by none's metaphysical assumption of a Copernican Principle, to a model which incorporates 96% of the universe in unobserved forms, requires inflation (which has been observationally falsified by the Planck results-of course one can ex post facto stand on one's head any gin up some kind of ex post facto adjustment to that as well, but canonical inflation is falsified by Planck)....requires curved space time even though the universe is now observed to be flat as a pancake....requires a multiverse even though the scientific method can never, even in principle, ever be brought to bear upon a domain which is causally disconnected from our own......

    Once you have reached this stage, it is time to broaden the conversation.

    I do not expect the process to be particularly polite, but it is certainly going to happen.

    1. Am I misunderstanding you, or is there some newer information you could point me to?

      I'm not sure how your premise requires it, but according to this, "inflation" was supported by the data gathered from the Planck Satellite.

    2. Gremio:

      It is the old information that I point you to. It is *canonical inflation*; that is, the theory first advanced, back when the horizon problem and the flatness issue were in view, and inflation was proposed to answer them.

      This is addressed in my post here:

      Clearly, the Planck Team was completely at odds with itself at the time of the release, since its papers directly (!) contradicted one another.

      There is a subsequent revised version of Paper XXIII just posted on arxiv within the last week or so.

      And, by the way, Guth has published just a couple of days ago in response to Steinhardt:

      His rebuttal confirms my original thesis:

      "In assessing the criticisms of inflation by ISL, we have identified several assumptions in their arguments that we consider problematic. Most stem from an outdated view in which a single phase of inflation is assumed (or re- quired) to persist from the Planck scale to the inflationary scale."

      The "outdated view", of course, is canonical inflation, which is falsified by Planck, and which is, as is standard in the post-scientific method, never abandoned, but ginned up ex post facto.

  3. It may be too much of a distraction to try to psychoanalyze the minds of those (and they are no doubt legion!) who would mock to no end the honest discussion which The Principle hopes to engender.

    The movie seeks to aid all sorts of people in arriving at the truth of a very important reality with the ultimate aim (if I am not mistaken), and regardless of any overt claim to such, of bringing them closer to the Creator of that reality.

    Some who would try to denigrate the scientific objectivity of the movie do so by claiming it has a religious overtone which compromises its scientific objectivity. In my opinion, such a claim -- whether sincerely held or not -- is absolutely bogus and may sometimes simply be used as a red herring. The devil being the father of lies, it should be no wonder that the fury/rage seen in some of the opposition to the movie seems nothing short of demonic.

    I would submit that ultimately there is a certain degree of mystery surrounding goodness, beauty, and truth just as there is a certain degree of mystery surrounding their opposites. Nevertheless, we may discern certain patterns of those participating in the discussion of The Principle. A simple example is offered. Why is it that a good number of people on blog sites and other forums -- especially when they can more easily remain anonymous -- so often seem incredibly prone to using scatological language in deriding those they disagree with? Often they will also refer to their opponents as people who copulate with their mothers! (On the other hand, you would hardly ever, if ever, see this kind of language being used by those speaking favorably of the movie or even being neutral about the movie.) They sometimes get so carried away with their vile language that the reference is thrown at people who are females! I believe that our rational thinking, even as it is aided by God's good grace, will carry us far, but not to the limit of absolute perfect comprehension in trying to understand one's extreme close mindedness when it comes to discussions which challenge -- even if only indirectly -- one's pre-disposition to an utter rejection/denial of God or at least the rejection of the serious mandates the Christian God (i.e, the only God!) would place on them.

    Lest we ever be discouraged, however, from bearing witness to the truth be it scientific or otherwise, may we draw consolation from the Truth who spoke to us about a sword, a sword of division. Matt. 10:34

    James Phillips

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Well, on strictly empirical grounds, we have a situation where Lawrence Krauss has alleged "The Principle" to be nonsense.

      On examination, it turns out he has never seen it; he advances this on the basis of a trailer.

      On further examination, he advances this on the basis that he was "used to sell something he does not believe in".

      I think we can reasonably, if provisionally, conclude he is referring to the views of others in the film, particularly concerning the existence of God, with which views Dr. Krauss manifestly does not agree.

      Obviously, I could give a hoot whether he is offended that we would include other viewpoints.

      He doesn't get to edit our film, just interview for it.

      There is another, more interesting possibility however, and were I a betting man, I should not neglect to keep this one in mind as the story develops.

      Dr. Krauss is on public record concerning the implications of the CMB Axis.

      We, probably alone among all documentary projects, actually interviewed him concerning these statements.

      He perhaps might recall his answers, and, in light of Planck's results, find himself in a position not unlike that of a politician who, unable to retrieve the footage, is left with the option of attempting to discredit the source.

      We'll see ;-)

      One of the good things about "The Principle" is that we retain 35 hours of unedited raw footage of all of the interviews, and transcripts, and we are very proepared to respond to any and all allegations of impropriety or selective editing.

      Boy howdy are we prepared.

      I keep telling people: "The Principle" is the one movie you absolutely must see THIS year!

    2. You retain all the unedited footage, so, of course you will make it available to the public to show that you didn't mis-represent the views of the people you interviewed, right? As soon as you do, please contact me via Google+. I'm waiting. . .

    3. Charles: We will be prepared to completely demolish any claim of misrepresentation.

      We will be delighted to take on the first huff-and-puff blowhard right out of the gate.

      The second one will probably never show up.

  5. If your foundational principle is "Magic Man Done It", then that's the end of the conversation, and OK fine, you win.

    Without science you'd most likely be living a short life in a mud hut. The rest of us are going to keep on keeping on with what works.

  6. Woof. Woof.

    Woof Woof Woof.

    Science is a great gift to you, built on the foundations provided by the metaphysical geniuses of Catholic Christendom.

    Here is another gift for you. It is from Johannes Kepler, a scientist who, unlike you, actually discovered something important about reality.

    He has his own definition of science:

    "Thinking God's thoughts after Him."

    You're welcome.

    1. Awesome; I hope to remember Kepler's quote and share it.

      BTW--the lack of knowlege about the history of science from so many commenters, goes to show how important Catholic education is.