The First Question

     Every time I happen onto an interview with a guy like Lawrence Krauss I get extremely frustrated.  Not because I disagree with his theory of the early beginnings of the Universe, but because he dissuades people from investigating the most important question we could ask regarding the origin of the Universe.  Does the Universe require something in order to exist?  From here, I'll be referring to this as "the first question".

     Contrary to what people may tell you, this is a very important question.  I'm going to delve into the reasons for this shortly, but before getting to the reasoning let me say that theoretical physicists are not the only ones that dissuade people from investigating the question.  Theology does the same thing all the time.  "If you don't believe what I do you will <insert action>" and "believe in what our book says because our book says it!".  Religions demand legal protection and prosecution against non-believers, and Mr. Krauss claims that teaching Religion should be criminalized.

     I personally find a comical irony in the fact that whether he likes it or not, Mr. Krauss behaves exactly like a Religious extremist that demands criminal prosecution for anyone who believes differently than themselves.

    Mr. Krauss happens to be untruthful in the title and claim that "A Universe" can come "from Nothing".  That statement is not meant to imply intention, which could be for simplicity as well as misleading.  I didn't write or title the book, so have no insight into the purpose of the title.

     In order for the expanding Quantum Vacuum to be possible stuff must exist.  "Nothing" in this theory happens to be quantum particles, energy, space, and of course all of the laws of physics.  Obviously his statement of "nothing" is in reality, well.. everything because these are the building blocks of the Universe.

      Cosmology has come a long way in terms of theories demonstrating that we don't need a lot of stuff to have a Universe.  A few very small building blocks is all it takes according to both the current Quantum Vacuum and Big Bang theories.  Compare this to when I was a kid and the Big Bang was the only game in town claiming that the Universe came from a ball of mass that was 270,000 light years in diameter when it exploded.

     We can't say "why" or "how" those building blocks came to exist, no matter what people like Lawrence Krauss claim.  The first question is as valid today as it was in our first Philosophical writings discussing the question over 2,400 years ago.  I also don't believe that we will ever know definitively, because we can only study what happens after the instant where the building blocks existed. 

     I don't mean to dismiss Mr. Krauss's work completely.  "A Universe From Nothing" does an exceptional job of explaining the quantum theory in terms that many people can understand.  His discussions incite thinking about Cosmology and Physics, and in my opinion getting people to think is a great thing.  That said, if you are not asking the first question you are not doing anyone any favors.  It's like telling people to learn math and ignore politics.  While math will surely make you better at a job and managing your bank account, politics impacts you every moment of your life.  People should be encouraged to study all subjects, and especially traditional liberal arts (Philosophy, Rhetoric, Logic, Ethics, and Political Thought).

     Why the first question is important is related to what I mentioned above, inciting thought and education.  The question of the origin of the Universe is an exceptional way of teaching people to think critically, to articulate their point of view, and to detect flaws in logic.  There are not only logical lessons in the question, but ethical lessons as well.  For an ethical example we can investigate Pascal's Wager.

     Few questions have the same power as this one in terms of promoting critical thought.  Fewer questions have the same power of getting someone to challenge their own beliefs, let alone challenge the status quo.  Those challenges are how society and science both improve.  If you have doubts, ask yourself why we no longer teach that the world is flat, or the Sun revolves around the Earth?  The answer is that people challenged the status quo and their own beliefs, and went looking for different answers.  Occasionally those people were correct!

    Instead of teaching people that your answer to whether or not the Universe needs something in order to exist is correct, why not teach them the question and give them the tools so that they can find their own answers?  Teach people that circular logic does not answer the question, teach them why an appeal to authority or emotion does not stand up to scrutiny, teach them what a masked man argument is, and for pity sake teach them what an ad hominem is and why not to use it!

     Criminalizing beliefs is not the answer.  History provides us with examples of societies that have tried this and failed with tragic consequences.  From the Burning of the Library in Alexandria through the Dark ages we see the consequences of criminalizing thought, and none of it is good.

     Conversely, when freedom of thought is given to the populace history shows progress and advances.  Athens sparked revolutionary ideas in Government and Philosophy, early Rome saw immense growth in Engineering, Architecture, and Art.  Not every line of thinking was correct in history, but we need to make mistakes to move forward.

     That's not saying that public schools need to teach Theology, because that is not the first question.  Theology matters only when you answer the question for yourself, and only if you come to the conclusion that something created the Universe.  So lets not build a straw man about teaching Theology.

     If we gave people the tools so that they can answer the first question for themselves, the world would be a much better place.  With those tools, they can begin to answer any other question they wish.

    Providing people with the tools to think is a frightening prospect for some people.  Arming the student to question the teacher takes bravado and confidence in your own beliefs.