Just a quick note: if youre looking to expand your mind enough to make your head explode, then read this very interesting essay by my fellow Hive Overmind Discover Magazine blogger and theoretical cosmologist Sean Carroll on why theres something rather than nothing. That is, why does the Universe exist the way it does?

Im simplifying it a bit here. But its similar to the question, why is there something rather than nothing, which Sean has also written about.

Theres some tech speak in the first article, but its a fascinating discussion of the nontroversy brewing between some scientists and some philosophers. I agree with Sean; many of the potshots they take are poorly aimed (though I do tend to agree with my friend Massimo Pigliucci when it comes to scientists misunderstanding the need and use for philosophy).

As Sean says, it does no good when participants in the two fields talk past each other. But I do disagree with him very mildly when he says,

the point of philosophy is not to be "useful" to science, any more than the point of mycology is to be "useful" to fungi.

Perhaps thats not the point of philosophy, but its a role philosophy plays, a critical one. After all, the way we practice science ideally relies on its philosophy. Maybe Im splitting hairs here, but Id call Karl Popper a scientific philosopher, as well as Galileo and many others who allow a meta-knowledge of how to do science influence they way they actually do it.

I suspect Ill have a fun conversation with Sean about this next time we get together!

Continue reading here:

Why is there something rather than nothing? | Bad Astronomy