Origin of the Universe Updated
Prior to presenting my view of the origin of the universe, discovering why there is anything rather than
nothing should be determined. Why is there anything if the first existent could not be? Why, then, is there something rather than nothing? Those are questions that can be answered as follows: either nothing exists or something exists. Since nothing does not exist, something must exist; that something is the first existent which was located in a timeless pre-universe. Philosophers have been searching for this first existent which is immaterial space with a capacity for becoming actual. We know that actual space is a requirement for mass and that it preceded mass, the existence of which is undisputed since Idealism is irrelevant and the Standard Model is relevant. Immaterial space in the pre-universe became actual space in accordance with Aristotle's view of potential and actual. Immaterial space in the
pre-universe had a capacity for becoming actual space since immaterial space would have been potential since it is now actual. Potential immaterial space became actual space (inflation preceding the big bang) liberating the energy of the big bang and that is what originated the universe. Perhaps, God is the first existant; I thought this natural view might be interesting to some enquirers.
Space meets the Kantian transcendental requirements by being absolute, necessary and universal; therefore, space is not empirical. What, then, is space? Is it a perception, a field, a bending and stretching existent, an immaterial existent or something else? Space is a real immaterial existent.
VPM
nothing should be determined. Why is there anything if the first existent could not be? Why, then, is there something rather than nothing? Those are questions that can be answered as follows: either nothing exists or something exists. Since nothing does not exist, something must exist; that something is the first existent which was located in a timeless pre-universe. Philosophers have been searching for this first existent which is immaterial space with a capacity for becoming actual. We know that actual space is a requirement for mass and that it preceded mass, the existence of which is undisputed since Idealism is irrelevant and the Standard Model is relevant. Immaterial space in the pre-universe became actual space in accordance with Aristotle's view of potential and actual. Immaterial space in the
pre-universe had a capacity for becoming actual space since immaterial space would have been potential since it is now actual. Potential immaterial space became actual space (inflation preceding the big bang) liberating the energy of the big bang and that is what originated the universe. Perhaps, God is the first existant; I thought this natural view might be interesting to some enquirers.
Space meets the Kantian transcendental requirements by being absolute, necessary and universal; therefore, space is not empirical. What, then, is space? Is it a perception, a field, a bending and stretching existent, an immaterial existent or something else? Space is a real immaterial existent.
VPM
Comments (566)
But scientists don't use God as an explanation.
if God is excluded then the question is how something come out of nothing?
Interesting text and points of view. But I guess you end up with a contradictory conclusion: God being the first existent. Previously you have shared that either the universe where we live in exists or doesn't not exist as basic primarily principle of the "Universe's origin"
For some religious God is "omnipotent", thus God is the maximum power. "Whether God can create a spherical cube, or make a stone so massive that he cannot move it" Omnipotence
So, the omnipotence of God should not be a handicap about "existant or not existant"
You're close...
Some questions are philosophical and some are not.
I don't think science (or anyone) can determined if there was ever nothing. The 'something from nothing' trope seems unique to religious worldviews.
"In the standard positivist approach to the philosophy of science, physical theories live rent free in a Platonic heaven of ideal mathematical models. That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed, and can contain an arbitrary amount of information, without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models, are both part of the universe we are describing. Thus a physical theory, is self referencing, like in Gödel’s theorem. One might therefore expect it to be either inconsistent, or incomplete. The theories we have so far, are both inconsistent, and incomplete."
Which is nonsense. We can imagine ourselves outside of that universe and contemplate the happenings while time proceeds for us.
If the universe is eternal, which, in my calmly reasoned, humbly humbleness, seems to be the case, then who created eternity? Why can't a cause lay infinitely far away in the past? What is time if not experienced by their eternal creations? Eternity might take the blink of an eye.
I have no reason to ask 'who' or use the word 'created' for anything. I think you may be right about eternity but this may be beyond human understanding for now.
I think you're wrong on that because scientists are trying to answer something from nothing rather than avoiding it.
I posted 2 videos some time ago which shows sceitsts trying to explain their efforts about something from nothing:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12061/can-theory-of-nothing-challenge-god/p1
Can't we have an innate, a priori divine, religious knowledge? If beyond human understanding for now, when will we know? When we die?
Krauss and grassy Tyson offer no theory of something from nothing here. They say nothing is empty space. Filled with virtual possibility. From which the real flashes into existence. Which is different frome something from nothing, as it is falsely claimed.
Quoting Haglund
No, I can't see that. How would you demonstrate this?
If you think there never was nothing then that implies matter is eternal?
if matter is eternal then that's a big problem.
I don't mean to demonstrate it, but ask if it could be. Isn't religious knowledge proof? Isn't theology taught at our universities. To which I might add, on the highest floor, normally, with lifts with one button only. "I wanna go down".
Why's that?
The actual question is probably 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' Not 'Did something come from nothing?' I don't think humans can answer this yet - certainly not by using wonky science on an internet forum.
question what was there before becomes infinitely never ending question.
in other words, scientists will never be able to defeat God.
I don't know what you mean by religious knowledge.
Quoting SpaceDweller
What does this mean? I had no idea scientists were even talking to god let alone trying to defeat it - do explain this.
Ah yes! Science can describe the universe but not explain it. I had an epiphanistic experience about an infinite series of big bangs on a bulk space. But from where does this infinite series come? Only god(s) know(s).
I believe some scientists are shaking out of desire to prove there is no God, for example they are in search of so called "God's particle", as if the ultimate goal is to prove or disprove God's creation.
Why didn't they name it something else? something which would sound more scientific.
That's because that knowledge is suppressed from the time you were a kid. It's simple though. It's knowledge about the heaven and the gods in it. About their reasons to create life based on matter. Knowledge to talk to them, or how or if they contact us. It's not moral knowledge Though It's related and the divine knowledge has influence on the scientific knowledge (material knowledge) or knowledge of the soul and mind.
Well I know you believe that, but I have no reason to. I'm not in the secret, suppressed knowledge business.
To sum it up, there is existence without prior explanation. This is not a possibility, this is a logical certainty. This means there could have been nothing, then something without any cause or explanation. A God, while a statistical possibility, is only one out of an infinite possible number of alternatives and is in no way necessary.
Then straighten up, head full in the wind, and walk proudly and tall. If you don't need the knowledge it's up to you. Material knowledge can't explain the origin of that matter. Or impose boundaries on that knowledge.
can you please name few alternatives to God?
Certainly. With the proof that there must be at least one first cause, we realize that a first cause could be anything. When something has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules limiting how or what could exist. So anything you can imagine.
Several particles could have popped into existence. A big bang. Several universes. There is absolutely zero necessity for a God, or a reason for why there is existence. The conclusion is, "There simply is."
:rofl:
What do you call that Philosophim? Logical atheism?
Interestingly enough, its not atheism. I'm not denying the possibility that there could be a God. Logically, a God is possible. Of course, logically, a God is also not necessary. To claim a God's existence, one would need some type of evidence of that existence. The fact that there is existence, is not an argument for there being a God.
Agree. The world exists. Any cause needs to be explained by a cause.
which leads of infinity
Quoting Philosophim
but there is reason for God's existence, while anything that you can imagine requires reason and first cause.
What is the reason for God's existence?
love,
love toward creation, love toward existence, love toward anything.
I never found that interesting or compelling.
I'm assuming you are alluding to the fact that other things are interesting and compelling to you?
Yes. The idea that God created the world for love just does not mean anything to me.
Yea but other things mean something to you. :)
fine, I don't find plausible or compelling that anything you can imagine doesn't require prior reason for its existence.
after all we are talking about creation of the universe or everything, there must be reason.
everything needs or has a reason.
Yes. As far as explanations for what our universe is.
Infinite regress of cause. God created the universe. Nothing created God. Not an explanation, just a myth.
And I am fine with myth, just not this one.
infinity is not an answer because first cause is necessary what ever it may be, God or not God.
You don't take God as an explanation, that's fine but then at least there must be something else that breaks infinity.
Saying "God" is first cause is myth. Like I said, that is okay, there just is nothing further to discuss.
Is there a prior reason for God's existence? Note the word "prior". If there is a prior reason for God's existence, then God is not the first cause of reality. And if there is no prior reason for God's existence, then my point stands.
I think you're missing the point. If people are not capable of figuring out the first cause then you can always fall back on God. At least we can't really fall back on, "it's not interesting or compelling to me".
At least God is an answer.
To you, not me.
Sounds emotional.
If we are talking about God as supernatural being, (non material being or thing) then even if there is prior reason there is no way for us to know it because it's outside anything we can see or measure.
ok
Ok, but that doesn't negate my point. That would mean something made God.
What can make God?
If anything made God then God is not God (it's inferior), but rather whatever made God is the actual God. (superior God)
Therefore, it's impossible to know prior reason for God's existence because that would make God inferior and us superior.
This means your point doesn't make sense for God.
He wants God to be like anything else.
What is the emotional part?
You don't understand?
Please refrain from ad hominems.
That's an accusation.
I have no problem conceiving, maybe imagining is a better word, that the universe, however you define it, has always been here and always will be. That it has no beginning and no end. Is that true? Who cares if it allows us to ignore the uncreated creator question.
My new philosophical position, a modification of Occam's razor - When you have two equal theories about some aspect of reality, choose the one that is less annoying.
If someone says you don't understand, that is not an ad hominem argument. It's not even an insult.
It is.
funny hahah :grin:
but infinite universe and finite universe are not equal theories.
Quoting val p miranda
What does this mean? (Hint: The word "existent" is an adjective, not a noun, as used here.)
Quoting val p miranda
The expression "nothing exists" has no meaning, by definition: "Nothing" means "not anything; no single thing.". So nothing cannot exist, and thus there's no choice (to be made) here, as this statement implies.
As a result, the whole construct of this thesis falls apart. Sorry! :sad:
Nunh unh. You should look it up.
I didn't say anything about infinity. I said that, perhaps, the universe has always been here and always will be. I think that way of seeing things and it's opposite are equal in that they are unverifiable.
That's not what I proposed, that's what you proposed. I stated if there was some prior causality for God, then something made God.
And if you believe God had no prior reason for its existence, then I'll post the original point I was referring to again.
Quoting SpaceDweller
If anything could have been a first cause, then it is not logically necessary that this first cause be a God.
Dead matter needs a creation. Eternal intelligence doesn't.
Why? And if matter is dead, wouldn't that mean it was once alive?
You did not address the point I made. If you want a discussion, or to have your point be taken seriously, address the point I made please. If you don't understand the point I made, feel free to ask.
Dead matter indeed was once alive matter. But matter is not intelligent enough to cause itself. It's too dumb, perfectly created as it might be (it contains the seed of life!).
Why is matter dumb?
You took the words out of my mouth! You're right. I don't see (get) your argument. So I ask you indeed!
Good question! Ill reflect. Too much at once...
ahahah :rofl:
it's extremly difficult to conceive anything else. moreover it difficult to define it or to describe it somehow.
The inability or difficulty to comprehend reality does not mean reality does not exist. You've easily accepted that a God existed without prior explanation. Is it not a simple step to apply that to something that is not a God?
God is well defined, what is the definition of your first cause thing or being?
I don't even know what I'm supposed to imagine.
:rofl: all innocent too.
Why do you treat God as anything else?
What do you mean?
Quoting Philosophim
Why do you treat God as anything else?
I'm still confused chiknsld. Can you expand on your point a bit more?
Well most people understand God to be by very definition an omniscient entity beyond all conception, etc., etc., but here you are trying to apply the same logic to God as to other things. So are you trying to redefine God as having equals?
A God can't be entirely beyond conception, otherwise you couldn't conceive of a God right? If we're referring to the idea that something can exist without prior cause, but is able to interact with the universe, then why does this have to be God? If something has no prior cause for its existence, then there is no cause that necessitates it exist. I created another thread here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins that may explain it better.
You wanted an explanation that is subsumed in the question so that you could address the explanation? (And yet, you speak about people skipping your questions) :) Therefore you leave me no choice...
Your answer to my question:
Quoting chiknsld
...
Quoting Philosophim
Yea sure.
Quoting Philosophim
Who said it did? Is that why you treat God as anything else?
Quoting Philosophim
Okay?
Quoting Philosophim
Philosophim, so far it looks like your answer to my very simple question that you had trouble with, "why do you treat God as anything else?", is that since God can exist without prior cause then we can imagine something else that can exist without prior cause.
But I suppose after all that effort, you'd still be treating God as anything else. :)
I suppose I shall never get my answer. Btw I'm jk, I understand that your conception of God is crude.
I think time is the universe as a whole. We can only think in parts, but have an understanding of time, which although vague, represents the unity and movement of the universe in eternal time. You seem to make the universe necessary, instead of a continuous revolution with no member first and no necessity to its existence
Agree with that.
Time does not exist? So then how do you explain a baby growing into a teenager? It takes time to develop. How do you explain memories of the past? Watching an old movie like, 'Pulp Fiction' on tv? It's a movie that existed in the past, there could be actors that are no longer alive. What about listening to Mozart? Surely that music existed in the past right? How can you explain any of these experiences without time?
Maybe he forgot, while trying to see time as merely a concept of the mind, that time is like space: it's not a thing or an object. It's the measure which the universe must impose on itself in order to be measurable
Indeed. :smile:
Well said.
Why is that ad hominem? Well, it actually litterally is. A question is asked to you, It just asks if you don't understand. It doesn't imply that you're dumb.
Okay, the origin of the universe. Let's imagine, my philosopher friends, a 2-dimensional analogy of the true higher dimensional happenings. Consider two infinite stretches of space connected by a thin wormhole. The space is empty, but due to quantum reality filled with virtual particles making their eternal rotations in time and space. Consider them as closed loops in Feynman diagrams. The quantum bubbles. The vacuum is a bubbling medium. All preons (two, in fact, the absolute minimum) and all interaction mediating particles (photons and gluons) make their eternal rounds. There is no time yet going in one direction.
Now let's assume, dear reader, that all preons, photons, and gluons, are confined to just one dimension in our 2d imagery. Only gravitons can occupy the fullness of the 2d bulk space. In the real world, preons, photons, and gluons would exist in the three dimensions of the observable universe only. And our universe would be embedded in a 4d space, which exists on two sides of a thin 4d wormhole.
Now, let's consider the preons be situated on two circles circumventing the mouth. By giving the mouth a tiny width and by constructing particles from an flat plane by curling one dimension of this plane up to an equally tiny circle, and placing a particle as a small circle on it (giving them an apparant point-like form from a distance), we can fit the circles neatly around the throat (note that the 2d plane has become 3d but seems 2d from afar, like the point only looks point from afar.
And look what can happen now. The curvature around the wormhole is negative (repulsive gravity!). Meaning the virtual particles are inflated into existence. With a big bang on both sides. The rest is history.
Question remains, from where comes this big bangs generator and the particles and spacetime involved? The particles with specific charges...
:up:
Yes, but that's why we have made clocks that run off only 1 sec every 10exp15 years. Not perfect, as they don't exist, but still... There were no clocks to measure time yet at the big bang, but you can image one, like is done in relativity, where everywhere in space an imaginary clock is thought. Which expresses itself as the time axis being an imaginary: it. Time is just asymmetric motion, irreversible processes. The mystery though is why it didn't start in the future, back to the start. It obviously is not the case, but that's no explanation. That's where gods come in.
But how can you have space without time?
time without space is not measurement of motion, distance is required in measurement which is space.
an object may move in any direction in 3D space, therefore without space there is no motion.
you may say an object moved for an hour, but what distance it made?
I'm trying to say that time and space cannot be separated, one without the other have no meaning.
space without time is fixed, not moving just staying in place.
Therefore if object does not move there is no time for that object?
don't objects age over time because they are subject to time?
Photons don't experience time and they move at light speed.
Any time measure is subject to the observer's reference frame, time dilates.
Movement like time is also relative.
It is accurate in my opinion to say that movement and time are entwined but they are still relative.
Space is expanding so space is not still, it is moving. No object in the Universe is 'still' within the reference frame of the whole Universe.
So movement and time are entwined but if movement reaches light speed then the time aspect stops, at least, relative to any observer within this Universe. Pretty weird stuff!
I would like to think that nothing is impossible but as far as I understand, it's impossible for anything with mass to travel at light speed.
Well, it seems it was a bad day for me. My two messages had a bad reception! I will try again some other day! :smile:
Proper time though is no relative notion. Neither is proper length.
No. If an observer reaches for lightspeed, the time he experiences is the same as yours. Time is not relative. But its pace is. It depends on your relative speed to the clock how fast you see it tick. If the clock goes with lightspeed you doesn't see it tick.The problem with a photon though is that there is no for the photon itself. There is no restframe for which this can be said. It always has speed. It's like instantaneous causation in Newtonian gravity. Which implies no time exists at all. The finite speed of light is the cause of not everything happening at the same time, same same place. The finite SOL is the cause if mass and time.
Sure, time is used as a measurement of movement, but it is also an intrinsic characteristic of space, because space defines that movement is possible in the first place, therefore there is a location x, which is different from location y (It takes time to traverse between location x and location y).
You can also look at time as the creation of space the same way you look at space as the creation of time (where location x is a time and location y is a different time, created by the space in-between them).
The thing that is important to understand is that you cannot have one without the other. You cannot have time without space and you cannot have space without time. When you have one reality (space) then you automatically have the other reality (time). One will be constant and the other will be the intrinsic characteristic.
Your argument seems to be that characteristics do not exist and that argument might apply more to physical phenomena, but when you are saying that one immaterial thing exists over another immaterial thing, the argument becomes trivial.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/special-relativity-proper-time-proper-length.html?msclkid=2b6077ffc3cb11ecbb608f3cc403a4cc
"Special relativity is the study of space and time and how they are connected. In this lesson, learn about proper time and proper length, as we study how time and length can change in special relativity"
"time and length change in special relativity, a phenomenon known as proper time and proper length."
"Einstein found that if one object was at rest and other object was moving at a uniform velocity, their proper time in relation to each other would be different. Einstein found that the faster an object went, or the closer the speed of an object was to the speed of light, c, that the time of that object would seem to slow down in relation to the object at rest."
Proper time and proper length are therefore relative notions used in special relativity.
No. They are frame independent. Everyone agrees on proper time and length. It's the rate of the clock in the rest frame. That's the same for all observers. Like the proper length.
"Einstein found that if one object was at rest and other object was moving at a uniform velocity, their proper time in relation to each other would be different. Einstein found that the faster an object went, or the closer the speed of an object was to the speed of light, c, that the time of that object would seem to slow down in relation to the object at rest."
Every cause was once an effect.
Could you delete my account? Thanks.
The avatar image... Impressive!
I think in general relativity that the theory of gravity is wrong. I think that space time is wrong In special relativity. I think much is wrong. But do not ask me to defend those views now.
Indeed. In relation to each other. But proper time is the time you measure in a rest frame. If course when that frame moves, it's a moving restframe. Coordinate free time is the clock that ticks in a rest frame for an observer in rest. Proper time and coordinate time are different things. Proper time has it's own symbol, [math]\tau[/math]. Coordinate time is t. A proper time interval is Lorenz invariant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
also:
No, my point is that definition of time is about existence rather than just a measurement unit.
Would you accept that your viewpoint is very fringe?
How would you explain observational and experimental results that confirm general and special relativity?
I can state that in my opinion, Force = mass x acceleration is wrong but if I can't offer any evidence to back up my claim then I simply inherit the wind.
But this is the vital point. Within their frame of reference, their motions are relative.
Quoting Haglund
I accept all of this but my first sentence holds. Proper time and Proper length are labels used in special RELATIVITY! So to say the motions involved are NOT relative is wrong.
I actually agree in part with this viewpoint but for a different reason. I think the fact that space is expanding shows that it is not infinite. The idea that the existence of space is unlimited is for me, more likely to hinge on the correctness of such theories as 'the Penrose bounce' or the 'multiverse.'
All motion is relative. That's what relativity is about. Only relative velocity exists. That's the velocity that's used in the Lorentz transformation.
Now of course, we could start a discussion about the motions of a (real) clock. All its parts experience another passage of time. But that would be a bridge too far. We could put clocks on the clock. And clocks on them. If they are alarm clocks, would be a hell of an alarm!
That not true. Space can be infinite and expanding. That's actually the prevailing view. Which with I disagree.
@Baden For your attention & necessary action.
Time is movement.
But of course that would go against Physics which coincides with your view that it is a measurement.
I think you're basically right here. I knew a wizard's daughter, Kika (she was the daughter of Ti-Ta-wizard whose objective in life was to change strawberries into camels, but never succeeded), who could stop time. If she clapped her hands, everything stood still.
Indeed. :)
Quoting Haglund
Now you say:
Quoting Haglund
So the notion of proper time and proper length are used is special RELATIVITY and are 'relative notions.'
So do you withdraw the words 'proper time though is no relative notion?' Proper time is a notion of special relativity where you have an object that is at rest (relative to outside frames) and the object moving away from it, is only being RELATED to the object at rest.
Quoting Haglund
Yes, I know.
Quoting Haglund
There are different viewpoints. Here are some points from the astronomy stack exchange:
An argument for:
As an illustration, take the infinite 'universe' of the natural numbers i=0…?. Now consider the sets 2i and 2i+1, each equally infinite as the natural numbers, but stretched. Now combine those two sets to get an expanded 'universe' and you obtain the natural numbers again.
Some counter viewpoints against the mathematical posit above:
a) If we make an analogy, this is equivalent to a Ponzi scheme. It works in theory. But considering nature's limitations it seems quite dubious. See Kant's first antinomy. The infinite attribute of the universe would just be a fallacy of perception.
b) Extrapolating rules at different scales seems naive. What you are stating here is that galaxies are expanding, not the universe.
c) AFAIK universe expansion implies "creating new space". Quite far from this response.
d) This kind of universe expansion is equivalent to measurement contraction.
I have the same viewpoint as c. I think you can expand into something which is infinite but that which IS infinite cannot expand. It makes no sense to me to suggest that it can. The mathematical example above just states that infinity +1, or infinity + infinity = infinity. To me, that just means that you cannot add to infinity. As c suggests you cannot add space to an infinity of space.
Perhaps @jgill would comment on the maths argument used above. As he is a maths prof.
Proper time is just an infinite small interval of time which is independent on the frame used. It's different from coordinate time, which is frame dependent, and which is used in Lorenz transformations. and does not exist for a photon, which follows lightlike paths.
The prevailing view is that the universe is infinite. This is based on observed flatness. But just as for a flat Earth, if you look beyond the horizon, the Earth is pretty much sphere! So basically, flat spacers are the same as flat Earthers...
Why shouldn't something infinite be able to expand?
How can the proper lifetime of a muon be relative if it's the same for all? It's just defined as the time as measured in the restframe of the muon. Of course, if you look at the muon as it travels fast, the proper time seems to slow down, but its the same still.
Yes, I know.
Quoting Haglund
I disagree, I think the prevailing view is that the Universe MAY BE infinite.
Another view is that it may be infinite but not boundless.
Wikipedia has:
Several potential topological or geometric attributes of the universe are:
Boundedness (whether the universe is finite or infinite)
Flat (zero curvature), hyperbolic (negative curvature), or spherical (positive curvature)
Connectivity: how the universe is put together, i.e., simply connected space or multiply connected space.
There are certain logical connections among these properties. For example, a universe with positive curvature is necessarily finite. Although it is usually assumed in the literature that a flat or negatively curved universe is infinite, this need not be the case if the topology is not the trivial one: for example, a three-torus is flat but finite.
Also from wikipedia is:
The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fits with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat, but the data is also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space and the Sokolov–Starobinskii space (quotient of the upper half-space model of hyperbolic space by a 2-dimensional lattice.
Quoting Haglund
In science, infinite means boundless. That which is boundless cannot expand or else boundless does not mean boundless.
Quoting Haglund
In 'reality,' muons don't have a restframe. So your 'proper lifetime,' label is notional.
Infinite with bounds? I don't understand.
Quoting universeness
Which doesn't mean infinite space cant expand. Eternal inflation posits an infinite space eternally inflating. Quoting universeness
Muons have a restframe like electrons have.
Infinite but not boundless simply means that the Universe may have parts that we will never be able to even 'detect,' so in that sense it has very real boundaries for lifeforms such as us.
Quoting Haglund
Yes it does if the infinite can expand then it was not infinite.
Quoting Haglund
I understand eternal inflation to be referring to the limits/edges of the Universe.
An eternal 'faster than light speed,' inflation which creates a 'multiverse.'
This would make the Universe infinite but bounded for us by our 'light cone' of existence in all directions.
Again from wikipedia:
In special relativity, the rest frame of a particle is the coordinate system (frame of reference) in which the particle is at rest.
In reality, when is a sub-atomic particle not moving?
We can only refer to a rest frame as a mathematical notion of 3D spacial coordinates in special relativity.
Can we actually bring a photon, an electron, a muon to rest? Has this ever been actually achieved?
No!
Which means an infinite space with infinite observable universes.
Quoting universeness
It can. In infinite many regions, the regions can expand. Infinity can become twice it's size and stay the same.
Quoting universeness
Eternal inflation posits an eternally inflating infinite space with pockets.
A phiton, eeeh, photon no. An electron or muon yes.
No, they are not observable!
Quoting Haglund
It's like the cookie dough example. The TOTALITY of the dough cannot expand if it is infinite but individual regions within the dough may be able to 'distort.'
evidence?
From the physics stack exchange:
Electrons on the other hand, do have rest mass. It is very confusing when somebody learns about rest mass and thinks electrons can actually be brought to rest. In reality they cannot be. No one has ever experimentally seen an actual electron at rest
Which doesn't mean they don't exist. If you go there with the sol you'll get there!
Quoting universeness
Infinite dough can get twice as big. Hmmmm...! :yum:
We will never know if something exists or not if we will never have any way to detect it.
Here is my coordinate system that indicate where your gods live (1,9,2.5.9.0.0.0.0,1,1,1,1, 10278).
So is this proof your gods exist?
How can an electron not be at rest if it returns? It has to be at rest at some moment.
But we can! We can fly to the observable edge of what we see and go behind the horizon. Like on Earth.
Gods don't exist in this universe.
If thrown up, it returns.
Ever ran around in a circle? If you had your energy replenished as you ran and your leg muscles were indefatigable then you would pass the same points many many times without starting or stopping.
I think scientific discoveries are on the peak, the universe is dead place that keeps expanding, meaning we'll never be able to reach any planet, we're stuck on planet earth likely until the Sun dies out.
new scientific discoveries are limited to areas that are within reach such as AI, robotics and similar, but physics, space, microscopic world and similar is at dead end.
scientists will struggle very hard to provide any proof that undermine religious beliefs.
Here is one interesting video about God debate, I find it interesting because it's so hard for scientists to do anything about God:
I mean if it goes in a straight line and returns.
I agree.
My coordinates for your gods are not in this Universe either! So does that mean they don't exist just because you cant observe or detect the place they refer to.
They can't do anything against gods. That's their frustration...
But perhaps it doesn't, perhaps there are no real straight lines in a curved Universe.
universe is according to old beliefs abode of evil spirits, and likely that holds even today when universe is mostly studied by scientists.
No. It means they don't exist in our universe. They can show themselves but dont exist here.
Yeah well, that might take us more time than the lifespan of our Universe.
A free electron moves in all possible ways. A straight line is one of them.
No, you could reach billions of lightyears in 80 years.
I have watched all of the late Christopher Hitches offerings on YouTube many times and he had little difficulty in swatting his theistic opponents in my opinion.
The best advice I would have given any theist wishing to debate him regarding god would have been DONT! You will lose!
I don't share your rather pessimistic viewpoints.
You haven't beaten me! Apart from dogmatic use of primal fear or telling that Im unconvincing (which is not my intent).
Quoting Haglund
Ok, perhaps your gods will one day take you there instantly. Thanks for the exchange!
And the third round goes to...
You talk theist! No, they won't do that... Thanks for the exchange!
Quoting Haglund
You sound desperate and at war with yourself.
Huh? Projection?
I think you 2 instead of attacking each other it may be better to put forward arguments for and against God's existence, and then collect as much constructive information as possible to defend your argument.
I'm not sure the atheist in general accepts my arguments. I consider the fact that we, life, and the universe are there is proof of gods. It can't have caused it's own existence.
agree, everything that exists must have a cause and nothing can be the cause of itself.
therefore nature (universe) did not cause itself.
Thank you for your comment but Haglund and I remain friends and our dialogue is free and fair with no malice intended or taken. I enjoy debating with him and will continue to do so on other threads.
His knowledge of cosmology is and always has been detailed and impressive.
Was writing something in similar lines (except the cosmological part!, but thanks!). The "battle" will continue my friend! :wink:
Ah, OK sorry, I hope I didn't disrupt you conversation.
:smile: Yes but I don't see our exchanges as a battle.
We should be able to 'dig' each other within the 'guidelines of debate.'
I think we do that quite well.
It's nice for folks like @SpaceDweller to play 'moderator', as well.
All good stuff. I remain a fan Haglund even with your roleplay polytheism.
Not at all! It's nice that you wanted to see if you could assist us.
I am away to watch some episodes of Star Trek Discovery series 3!!
Yes! Enjoy StarTrek! Great series hey? Space, the final frontier...
The arithmetic of infinities is a subject of axiomatic set theory. IMHO little to do with the real physical world. Others would disagree. As for the "expansion" of space, Wikipedia says it best:
(Wiki)
How can space expand? I can see how it bends, but expand?
The distance between objects changes in some sense.
And the photons travelling between them get red-shifted - a simple observational effect.
It does look that way, doesn't it? Confusion arises when 4D spacetime is introduced with a different metric, and said to curve, etc. But space itself does seem to show signs of curvature. Beyond me.
It's quite hard to break or snap it indeed. But it can be bend. But how can it expand without matter? Only if it expands in an extra dimension. There is no law in general relativity that forbids. The dogma though says that 3d space is intrinsically curved without being embedded in a 4d space. Embed the universe in a 4d space and dark energy is explained. You gotta keep matter attached to 3d though.
Theoretical p's in loop view?
That's exactly the tactic of atheists. I partially agree with them. I mean, it's clear to me they gotta be there, so I disagree. But insofar they are atheists because of moral issues about human relations I agree.
It has already...
Quoting val p miranda
I'm very pleased to read that! In the standard model it's said to be fundamental. I think it's composed.
Thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to contribute. It's always better to hear about the use of infinities in mathematics from those who really know about the use of infinities in mathematics.
Quoting jgill
I have fallen asleep whilst listening to 'Something from nothing,' by Laurence Krauss audiobook a few times. He talks about drawing a grid of equidistant dots on paper (I assume transparencies would be best) and then drawing a bigger grid of dots with a larger equidistance between each dot on a second piece of paper He then suggests picking any same dot from both papers and superimpose them on each other. You will then see that not only has the distance between every dot increased but the distance between your chosen dot galaxy will have increased by a factor of 2 then 3 then 4 then 5 etc related to how far away from your chosen dot it was on the first grid. This is basically how expansion works in our universe. For me, the second grid is 'bigger' than the first which suggests 'new space' is being created during the expansion rather than a 'stretching' of space between galaxies. If new space is being created and our Universe is not expanding into anything as it is everything then space cannot be already infinite in extent.
If you use the search words 'Does expansion create new space' on sites such a quora, physics stack exchange etc. You get many many viewpoints but they mostly split between 'new space created' and 'spacial stretching.'
One physicist on Quora posted:
"I personally think new spacetime is being created, since before time began there was no space, but who really knows, which is why I say it is the free space being created by stretching it, it is not anything to do with the space within matter expanding. Imagine you had 9 people stand in 3 lines of 3 to represent the singularity, then free space grew by 1 metre between each of them so they would now all be a metre apart. The middle did not move faster than the edges because none of the people actually moved in free space. There was relative velocity between the people but no real velocity since none of them had actually moved through free space. If originally the 9 people were standing on black crosses, they would still be standing on the same black crosses after the expansion. Each person had a zero displacement, therefore zero velocity. This also explains why the edge of our Observable Universe is about 47.5 billion light years away even though the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old. The most distant galaxies didn’t have to move faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, it was free space expanding away from us faster than the speed of light that enabled them to be that far away."
I think time is a measure but I also think it's a measure of motion from the standpoint of 'the duration of an event.' I think the view of reality for humans is that time is linear, past present future but I accept that may merely be what humans label reality rather than what reality IS. Mark Tegmark posits that past events have not 'gone.' I think he views events in time as being recorded in some sense in the fabric of space. Almost as if each 'bit' of space holds a series of layered photographs of all that has 'happened' in that bit of space since it formed. Perhaps the expansion creates the layering. I think I am now at best paraphrasing Tegmark and at worse projecting on him or misunderstanding him.
Have you ever tried to describe the Universe without reference to the concept of linear time?
Carlos Rovelli is one of the most respected proponents of loop quantum gravity. Have you watched his youtube offerings on time such as:
I like Christopher Hitchen's response to this. Firstly he recommends reading the Laurence Krauss book on the subject of something from nothing and then suggests that you worry more about the fact that all the current evidence suggests that the fate of the Universe is to become nothing.
Perhaps you could have a quick look at my thread titled 'The Penrose Bounce.' I cant be bothered repeating here what I typed there in response to your point above.
I have also always insisted that man created gods.
No wonder you fell asleep reading Krauss He's a total bore and little girls lover...
Space simply doesn't expand, nor is there new space created. It's an apparent effect only.
Ah, you meant LQG. There time exists all the same. But its behind the scene. Every 10exp-43 seconds, the scene changes but what makes it change every 10exp-43 seconds? There are creatures with a little stopwatches, who watch to and click every 10exp-43 seconds, and the scene progresses. :wink:
I did not read Krauss, I listened to him narrate one of his audiobooks.
I listen to audiobooks often before I fall asleep. Sleep happens regardless of the author of the book.
I don't hold with your opinion of Krauss and I would take care when you accuse people of heinous
tendencies on a public forum.
Quoting Haglund
Quoting Haglund
Quoting Haglund
Quoting Haglund
Quoting Haglund
You are not exactly consistent in the way you present your arguments. Your approach regarding expansion is rather 'scattergun.'
Ah yes. The consistency counter. So what? Life is inconsistent. As I said, space "seems" to expand. So it both expands while not actually expanding. It scans different cross sections of 4d space (5d spacetime).
Quoting universeness
It is a well know fact Krauss likes sweet sixteens. I do too but I don't actually try them out by being a hot shot in a cosmology in which he fakes something is created from nothing.
Answer by Fredric Brown (1906 - 1972)
Yeah, another to add to the many many such short dramatisations in existence.
Poorly chosen phrases such as "the monster computing machines," suggest to me that poor wee Frederic was a 'fearty.' Let's hope future transhumans will be intelligent enough not to wish to cause suffering of any kind to any living creature or any flora or planetary system.
Love, benevolence, altruism and philanthropy are also very much a part of being human or transhuman.
And that is not certain. You may hope so, but if they become conscious who says they wont destroy their makers and beat the Earth into submission? Kill nature, which they wont need to exist. Turn the Earth into a transnatural horror fantasy? With only flat metal plains, pylons of power, energy plants, and automated factories drilling the Earth and draining her resources? Fearty?
Precisely. The fate is to dilute towards the equilibrium energy state, which is the trigger for the next couple of universes to come into real being, from the virtual eternity.
It's hard to discern on TPF if a poster really knows what they are talking about, especially topics in physics. I think Haglund does have a graduate degree, and Kenosha Kid has a PhD. There may be one or two more. But a lack of in-depth studies of QM or general relativity is not a deterrent to posting a seemingly knowledgeable and well written statement on the subject. And if you go to a source like Wikipedia you might find confusing arguments and counter-arguments among experts in the talk sections.
One member here suggested a metric used in GR and when I read it on Wiki I could not tell whether a crucial term meant proper time or spacetime. And guess what, neither could a few of the "experts" speaking out in the general TALK discussion. Another instance was my attempt to find out what measure was appropriate for Feynman's path integral. In the article itself its just a brief hand wave, and when I asked about it in TALK I got no response. After a while I deleted my question.
The "big" theories are presented, in general, with much more rigor than they actually posses. It's a PR trick. QFT is not defined mathematically rigorously and a lot of axioms surround it, assuming things to be true.
"Axiomatic quantum field theory is a mathematical discipline which aims to describe quantum field theory in terms of rigorous axioms. It is strongly associated with functional analysis and operator algebras, but has also been studied in recent years from a more geometric and functorial perspective."k
Rigorous axioms... Can you see the contradiction? Can an axiom be rigorous?
Dirac called renormalization a "stopgap procedure" while Feynman had similar complaints. And let's be honnest (for a change...), isn't doctoring up an infinity to become finite quite... eeeh... stopgappy? Personally I think it's the assumption of point particles spoiling it all. I once proposed this on stack exchange but the question was deleted... there you go!
Bedtime reading, for if you can't sleep. :yawn:
It's in Cyrillic. Nevertheless math symbols are the same, but to no avail for me - gobblygook. Feynman's path integral is not the functional integral I am familiar with. Playing with Functional Integrals
Nice toys you play with. Of course, the first thing I tried was to establish a contact with the functionals in QFT. I love the visuals. Especially on page 4 and 10 (which show a strange Moiré kind of structure because of the close lines). There seems to be a connection with virtual particles (interaction!). For example, free Dirac fields couple to the virtual photon field and a virtual photon is represented by a bubble diagram, a closed circle contour in complex 2d x,t or p,t, or even the combined phasespace approach. So you can imagine your integration of in function space is relevant somehow. If each point in spacetime is connected with an operator valued distribution. The operator just excites various free particle states which almost continuously change (because the interactions with the virtual gauge particles, say virtual photons) into free particles with different p's and x's. I got it uploaded! Gnight, oldi boulderer! :yawn:
Oh yes. The fun with the Cyrillic(?) text is to follow without Cyrillic.
Rovelli has a lot of YouTube offerings, all of them are worth a viewing imo. I think it's hard to argue against his point about the 'now' aspect of time. I don't see why the vid was titled 'time does not exist' however as I think his evidence suggests we need a more detailed understanding of time not that it does not exist. He and his team are still moving toward publishing papers on Loop quantum gravity.
I assume his findings will not use time as a component.
Very true. You get a lot of gifted amateurs as well. It's the same on all discussion websites, you have to trust what people type to an extent. I think it's important to get layman viewpoints as they can often represent the majority of the population but the input of expertise is vital to combat inaccurate viewpoints.
I also understand that any expert in a particular field may get very impatient with those who they can clearly see don't understand or know much about the topic under discussion.
Asking for evidence in support of their position is a good way forward I think.
If they can't provide evidence and they are insulting and dismissive towards those who are expert in the field then I think the majority will judge their viewpoint to be simply wrong and their personality to be simply compromised.
Quoting jgill
:smile: I have had so many similar experiences when trying to gain a deeper understanding of a particular concept or area of cosmology. As I have stated before, my degree is in Computing Science.
I have post-grad qualifications in education (PGCE, chartered teacher, SQA final exam setter etc) and I have taken many ' internet-based modules,' on Cosmology (mostly through edx.org) but like many others, I also do my own background study. I think that a poor or acrimonious exchange with someone on a forum can have the advantage of reinforcing your own viewpoints or in some cases force you to review some of the details of the viewpoints you hold.
I agree that nothing comes out of nothing, but eternal universe is equally odd don't you think?
Wrong. Space is part of existence. Stop acting like existence is only comprised of matter.
How does it work up there concerning exam questions? Who creates the questions? If I have created some nice physics questions, could I show them to authorities? Just curious.
No, only teachers appointed by the SQA who have the necessary years of curriculum familiarity and have already been previously been appointed as markers and examiners for the final exam.
:smile: I cant recommend the cosmologist offerings on YouTube highly enough. Time well spent.
I find anything from Carl Sagan, Richard Feynmann......all the way to.....Laurence Krauss, Alan Guth, Carlos Rovelli, Sean Carroll and many others to be amongst my most 'life-affirming,' moments in 'spacetime.'
For the sake of Richard, his surname is Feynman. Small detail, but still...
Yeah, I put the extra n in just for you!
Thanks! You're incredible. A bit paranoid, but still incredible...
Thanks, right back at you. I am still not sure if you are 'credible,' INcredible as ever, is in the judgment of others but I prefer to be genuinely, instinctively, ever so humble, without secreting or hiding disingenuous humility or using stealth tactics to hide arrogant pomposity or deeply ingrained beliefs of superiority.
I am not a little paranoid but someone who makes ridiculous statements such as
Quoting Hillary
are either employing very skewed logic or have a very poor sense of humor considering the situation in Ukraine where innocent children are being slaughtered. So I don't think it's unreasonable or a little bit paranoid to suspect you of trolling.
As @Vincent pointed out, when WW3 arrives this year, technology development will be accelerated and the quest for immortality and omniscience will be boosted. If we are simulations of a super intelligent alien civilization, they will probably have a reason for letting us get involved in a new world war.
Nonsense.
Quoting Hillary
Are you convinced you are a simulation?
I believe we are simulations of that intelligence. For some reason they created us. Sounds like believe in God but it's actually rooted in the material universe. Maybe they created us for the same reason we develop transhumans or robots. If so, it's only natural to proceed on the road of technological development and galactic colonialization. We help them, and ourselves, in the search for knowledge and wisdom.
Why? All wars have shown an incredible speed-up of technology. Just look at WW2. Radar, the ENIGMA machine of Türing, etc.Imagine the speed up during WW3 or after.
It could even be argued that our development of high tech weaponry is arranged to speed up the technological development. Sad as all the suffering involved might be. You think I like it children are dying? The whole planet suffers from it but once immortality and omniscience are achieved we can create a whole new planet.
What reason then? What about just love?
Did they do it for us?
All religions are founded in the name of love. Rules have been invented for how to deal with love. Now I speak of a marriage between a man and a woman. But nothing is said about love for progress or for the planet in the religions. When religions were invented, people still thought the world was flat, but they already knew what love was. Love and hate has sent us to this day. We exist through love. For by love we will fight in a war. Love is nature's most powerful law. It is through love for our survival that we hold this discussion.
We need to rethink the concept of 'love'. God (or whatever god may be) didn't create us to fight each other forever. We have to accept love for what it is instead of fighting it. Only if we accept the concept of 'love' will we be able to understand where we come from.
I am not a religious person, nor do I believe that science is absolutely true. But think about it. About real love
Science is absolutely true. It gives us an explanation why the universe is there. Love permeates the universe. The driving force. If we want to shed our instinctive behaviors of aggression and procreation we must turn our heads to technological progress, which can redeem us. We have made the first cautious steps, but what has been achieved in 100 years pales in comparison to natural evolution.
love is about a world where everybody loves each other.
Such world is impossible, it's impossible to achieve such love, not even for 1 minute.
Is it possible that entire world loves each other just for 1 minute? No, it's impossible.
If such thing would happen we would see God.
what is an explanation of why universe is there?
The big bang.
huh, big bang is one of the theories in sequence, it doesn't answer why there is universe.
Theory is not evidence and if there is no evidence then there is no explanation why.
Well, that's the theory I cling to. Before the big bang there could have been another, and another. An infinite succession of bangs maybe. From where comes that infinite whole? Who knows...
that's right, "who knows".
therefore not an explanation of how universe come to be :smile:
Well, partly. We can investigate the stuff made. And describe how it evolved into life. Thats what's usually called an explanation for the origin of the Earth, the stars, or life. And we could describe the happenings before the current universe came into being. But where did the space and particles in it come from? God?
The various branches of physics seek answers to "how" rather than "why". You philosophers are charged with answering the latter. Good luck.
If space and particles are not eternal, that is, not infinite then God is logical explanation.
Otherwise you have problem of infinity which cannot be solved, ie. what's was there before cannot be answered because the question repeats itself no matter how far you go.
Therefore either there is God or infinity (that is, we don't know).
Why can't infinite space and time be created by God?
Because creation implies beginning.
To create means to create rather than it was there since ever.
Why can't infinity have a beginning infinitely far away?
What is the result of summing up 2 infinities?
infinite + infinite = ?
Or any other mathematical operation (not just sum)?
It stays infinite, but why can't infinity have a beginning?
No, infinity cannot be use in mathematical operations.
I suggest you watch this video, skip to @18:00 for direct answer (infinite hotel example)
Inftyexp3=Aleph2
.
.
.
Inftyexpinfty=Alephinfnty=Baleph
Balephexp2=Caleph1
Balephexp3=Caleph2
.
.
.
Balephexp4=Calephinfty=Daleph
Dalephexp2=Ealeph1
Dalephexp3=Ealeph2
.
.
.Dalephexpinfnty=Ealephinfty=Faleph
Ad infty
Which leaves us with the question, why can't it have a beginning?
Interesting video. But it doesn't answer the question. Why can't space be a finite structure on an infinite substrate? Finite universes periodically appearing at a divine origin? A universe appears, then expanding to the infinite angels at the edge, the at infinity back reacting to the origin, two new universes appearing, inflating towards infinity once again, back reacting again, etc. etc. We only need an infinite extra dimension. But what created that infinity of serial universes?
You example is an example of "ordinal infinity":
https://tomrocksmaths.com/2022/02/21/5-types-of-infinity/
Therefore is universe is of ordinal infinity magnitude, that is infinitely large and timeless with a beginning then the problem is solved which is God created infinitely large universe.
Otherwise if God did not create universe, then we are not talking about ordinal infinity but rather about "Infinite Series", and we are back to infinity problem, that is there is no beginning as well as no end.
There you go!
You have good taste. You made an excellent choice :smile:
Do you remember this from @Hillary?
Quoting Hillary
Mr. Universe! That was before I revealed myself! Had I continued the play, you would be on my atheistic side now.
Vincent, Mr. Universe is great to talk to. He's a strong man with love for the human species and freedom, but in the theistic domain he still needs to learn, or be learned, a lesson.
God is our basis of our existence, but is not visible. Compare it to a tree. The basis are the roots, but they are also not visible. How can you understand the workings of a tree if you can't study the basics. That's the same with man. If you don't believe that humanity has invisible roots (god), then you don't grasp the basics and you can never understand humanity properly.
@Hillary is a thinker to, just like you but he is also 'tricksy' (to quote Gollum from Lord of the rings)
He is not malevolent, just 'tricksy' and 'complicated.' Its the old 'switcheroo,' everything is not always as it seems.
I saw through your 'play,' pretty quickly. But I am encouraged by your quick, honest transition to the reveal. You could have 'massaged my doubt a little longer but you use the same 'errors in English' all the time and those are a big clue! So I won't tell you what they are for the sake of futureproofing. There are also other signs. I also have played this game on other sites with other people. This is in no way original stuff, it is unfortunately quite common. There are far far more serious cases of nefarious intent. You are thankfully not such a person or representative from a dangerous organised group. Or at least you don't show any of the signs I know of.
That's it! Though I think all life and the universe is just a reflection of life in heaven.
It was my English? Damned!
:rofl: Good luck with that! You can however keep helping me with the holes in my physics/cosmology :smile:
What hole of yours you want me to fill, your bla...no, too much! :lol:
More progress!! Well done! you can exert control and not fall into that black hole.
Told you I was a poet and don't even know it!
Perhaps this time, 'that's not my name!!' will keep his name longer!
Oh well, brother Uni, life is a long ride on the back of them crazy horses. Who knows where they lead us. We can always jump off and lay our weary heads at rest for a while and just bite a straw. I think I have seen most on this forum by now on which just a handful of people offer there musings without actually listening to each other (you, btw. making an exception, which I truly mean, eventhough you're an atheist...). It gets time to do other things. The thing is, it's kind of addicting and I'm kinda perceptive to that.
You are indulging in that boring old 'special pleading.' Why is your god label 'logical?'
Do you honestly think that the 'god does not need an origin,' special plead, is ever going to be accepted by atheists? or rational thinkers or those of us that just won't accept any woo woo, undemonstrated supernatural claims. The infinite regression issue is not satisfied by the god posit and NEVER will be.
Why is the god posit a more acceptable first cause or prime mover than 'a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence?'
You think that bla... could be a reason for a ban?
In defense of SpaceDweller, the gods don't need explanation as eternal intelligence is selfsufficient. Eternal stupid particles need an explanation though.
Well, some addictions are good for you, such as addiction to life, to communicating with others, to helping others, addiction to love, addiction to wonderment, addiction to truth seeking. I am just trying to convince YOU PERSONALLY that your addiction to science is far more worthwhile and useful than your dalliances with polytheism. It's time you forgave the current cosmology community for not giving your ToE more of an airing. Learn to love them again and stop wasting your affection on that which has no existence!
What about these two offerings:
and:
My advice would be. If you are about to type something which the moderators are probably going to judge inappropriate then dont! Go to the shoutbox! That's what it was made for within extremity guidelines.
Yes, I said that. But it was part of a play I performed to join the atheist belief and make them admit their own defeat. I started rather pompously, and @universeness sensed my play very well. I continued though and almost succeeded, hadn't I revealed the play too early. I couldn't resist when he said that "we surely had many exchanges before", which he said because that wasn't yet the case. And indeed, we have had many many discussions here before.. So I answered, "I think so too!", which settled the score. But I wonder where we would be if I hadn't revealed. I almost got him over! But the clown in me got the upper hand. Again...
I was thinking about the same song and actually hoped you posted it! No kidding!
You are a poet!
LOL. But from the start he said he thought you were a troll.
I didn't get it either. But you shouldn't bully people like that. You say yourself that he is a good person with a heart for people and nature. I don't think you should lie like that.
Rather than working against each other, wouldn't it be better to figure out each other's truths and then come up with a new idea together. We are all going through a very difficult time and if we keep working against each other like this, there will be no solution.
God is not true until science proves otherwise. I believe in its existence, but can't prove it either.
Does it manifest in such a way that you would consider what I am saying to you?
I believe you. I am not suspicious of everything you say, especially in regards to your extensive physics and cosmology knowledge.
Thanks for your defense of me and I don't wish to dilute it but I am not easily bullied by anyone.
Your sentiments and recommendations towards better communication and honesty between people are spot on in my opinion. We can all benefit more from such an approach. I wonder how well those people who called you an idiot really know you. But the question must also be asked, how much effort did you make, to help them understand you better?
No one really knows me and I've never met anyone who makes the effort to understand me. I also think I've always been with the wrong kind of people.
Quoting universeness
That's a tough one. I'm 32 now and I still don't understand myself. I've already put a lot of effort into it, but I like to change my mind, which causes a lot of chaos in my head. And changing your mind often comes across as an idiot. I'm not a good speaker either. Typing it works better.
I have made progression with the ToE though. I have found, I think, a way to mathematically describe the particle geometric structure. Consider a 6d space. Now, we need a 6 dimensional metric (6x6 matrix, without time yet). The first block describes the bulk, the second block the 3 curled up dimensions. Now, the bulk 3d vacuum is filled with virtual particles fluctuating (rotating) and the real particles are actually virtual particles with precise momenta and positions and existence in time, and they interact by coupling to these virtual ones, breaking them open (the single virtual particle is actually a circle in a spacetime Feynman diagram). The virtual particles can get accelerated away from each other in a background bulk that is one dimension higher, if this 4d space is hyperbolical or saddle like, as negative curvature represents repulsive gravity. How do we contain the particles in a 3d space and how can a vacuum be hyperbolical? Well you can say that the virtual particles cause a negative curvature. Virtual gravitons coupled to real mass cause positive curvature of spacetime. Virtual gravitons are part of empty space too. But with real mass they cause positive curvature and when no real mass is present yet, as before the big bang, the default curvature is that of the internal of a torus, which has negative curvature on the inside. So the virtual particles, confined to 3d around the hole of the 4d torus, can accelerate away from each other on the inside part of the torus (we only need the inside part of the torus and extend the negative curvature to infinity). How do gravitons curve space(time) though? The difference between the three basic particles is a different one than the gravitational interaction. The gravitational interaction in general relativity is described by curvature of spacetime, while the quantum field picture is a particle interaction. If gravity is mediated by particles, then how the curvature arises? Einstein described gravity by spacetime curvature but how mass/energy curve space is not explained. If we put two masses in empty space, they couple to the virtual graviton field, but how does this curve space (and time automatically)? The space between two electrically charged particles gets not curved when the couple to the virtual photon field. Of course gravitons are tensor particles, but why, if they couple to mass, should that induce space curvature? I asked on physics forums but got no answer, only comments of being an improper question or deletion of the question (and bannings for asking to much, so it seemed). I have my ideas about it and you're right. Why bother about them gods? BTW, prof. Harari answered me politely, but I think he's an exception to the rule. Most of them hotshots think they live high above. But maybe for a dollar I might contact Carroll. But it's the very idea that you have to pay to ask. Im curious though for his answer.
Why? I mocked them theists too, and still do. But they exist (gods) and without them what meaning would have life?
I don't like most theists either, but that doesn't mean I deny the existence of god. God is not an old man on a cloud or anything. God is something that connects us all in one way or another.
Can't we make a site for alternative theories of physics? But with respect for the actual theories already in use?
:up:
Wise words my friend! I made a short story about the gods. I think every creature or organism, yes the whole universe, have an eternal counterpart in heaven, and it was that eternity that was involved in their decision to recreate heaven.
Once you have knowledge of what the blockages are and what's causing them, you can start to tackle the problem. Perhaps that's why you started to exchange your views more on sites like this one.
Quoting Vincent
I'm 57 now and I still don't fully understand myself, I don't expect I ever will and I am glad of that.
If I had no more questions then what would my purpose be?
Life is a bitch and then you die but I f****** love that bitch and death is the harbinger of change.
I am unafraid of oblivion. It's a far far better sleep I go to than I have ever known!
But meantime life! Being alive! living! Yeah, I think we need to celebrate the wonder of that more and we don't need the permission or sanction from non-existent gods to do so.
Do you ever compare your 32 years with the proposed 13.8 billion since the big bang?
So far, you and I are tiny wee blips in the cosmic calender scale YET we may well be the ONLY assigners of ANY SIGNIFICANT MEANING to the Universe. Without us blips the Universe may have NO MEANING or at least its meaning may be very much reduced. An arrogant viewpoint I admit, especially when I am a proponent of Carl Sagan's great demotions and I consider myself humble but our significance to the Universe may be quite, quite true nontheless.
I do that almost constantly. If you know that, then thinking you know a lot is the dumbest thing there is. Our entire society has only been around for 7,000 years or so. If you compare that to those 13 billion years. LOL. People really think we've accomplished something. That we have already discovered everything. We don't know anything yet.
But I've been gone for a few hours now. Still gotta do stuff. See you later
Why 6D in particular as opposed to the 10D of string theory?
Quoting Hillary
Why 3 curled up or why 3 dimensions of the very small? just as a mirror to the 3 macro dimensions?
Quoting Hillary
I have a serious problem at this point! how can that which is 'virtual' 'fill' anything.
Virtual particles are mathematical only. There is no empirical evidence that they exist IN REALITY.
Quoting Hillary
You are making big leaps here! Based on what? A 'virtual' particle cannot be conflated with a 'real particle,' by just 'assiging' it momentum and position. Both of which are mainly probability-based and are field perturbations and also observer relative.
You would need to get me past these points before I could try to understand the rest of your posting
Now we're talking! Im in the park right now but will surely reply when back home. There's some pretty serious barking going on! :up:
I agree, definitely worth the pennies involved but be warned, if you pay, it does not guarantee an answer from him. In one of his podcasts, Sean said he 'chooses' which ones he thinks are 'worth,' an answer.
So why don't you?
Bye fur noo!
For your return:
Quoting Vincent
Who you calling dumb? :rofl: Only Kidding. I assume you meant 'we' rather than 'you' as a reference to me personally.
Quoting Vincent
But you are being equally inaccurate with 'we don't know anything yet!' I think the opposite is true, I think we have gained incredible knowledge of the Universe in the 'as you and I agree,' very short amount of cosmic calendar time we have been seeking knowledge.
Knowledge enough to convince you that human immortality is immanent.
If you believe that then it contradicts your claim that 'we don't know anything yet"
Because this is the way to create a geometric structure that looks point-like in three independent directions, while keeping an apparent 3d bulk space.
Suppose space was apparently 1d. This could be envisioned by a thin cylinder, with a Planck sized radius. . If we place a circle on it that is the particle in a 1d space, which is actually 2d.
We could do the same for an apparently 2d space which is actually4d and the circle becomes a direct product of two circles. If we do this for an apparently 3d space we need the product of three circles, S1xS1xS1. Like that, the particles can be packed without forming an actual singularity as in black holes and the start of the universe ain't no singularity either! On top of that, the Planck length is Lorenz invariant as the three extra dimensions are perpendicular to the three large dimensions. Ain't that great! Them gods were ingenious bastards!
Quoting universeness
Yes, that's the usual argument. But not everyone agrees. Not being detectable is not equivalent to not being real. And it offers a nice mechanism for the appearance of real particles out of the the vacuum during inflation . The negative curvature pushes them into real existence. The vacuum is filled with virtual particles and in a sense, space can be said to be constituted by them. It's the medium for particle interactions.
Professor Harari in Israel actually gave me a friendly reply to my questions and not even asked s dime! Unlike Carroll, of which it's not even sure if he answers!
It's strange. There is a "beyond the standard model" section on physicsforum. So I thought to give it a try. But the section is as conservative like hell, and even suggesting substructure is a sin. Speaking of dogma...
I think starting such a site is a good idea.
because "a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence" is terrible explanation.
First of all we know absolute nothing of that mindless spark and it's very likely we'll never do.
or some scientist says correctly that space preceded the big bang. Science can never arrive at the question of God; it is beyond the paradigm.
Space did not precede the Big Bang.
What do you mean by 'terrible'? Do you mean it terrifies you or it does not satisfy you?
We know absolutely nothing of ANY THEIST first cause posit whereas Roger Penrose suggests his team has evidence of 6 hawking points in THIS Universe that provide evidence that THIS Universe started due to the ending of a previous one. Which sends any first cause into a previous time epoch. The Penrose bounce suggests there may have been many other 'bounces.' and time epochs.
How far back does your first cause (mindless spark/god posit) have to be sent before your ego is satisfied that to us, this meaningless first cause is just that, meaningless.
How much do you need the god fairytale to continue to sate your primal fears?
First cause is logical explanation, otherwise you must accept "eternal existence" is real.
There is no way out of this dilemma.
But I'll be permissive with you and say that "a mindless spark that started everything and no longer has ANY existence" has exactly one logical explanation, which is "God" that sacrificed itself to create everything that we know about today.
This means such "God" is dead for good, and if you accept this proposal. this means it cannot come to existence anytime again because it's dead, therefore not possible multiple "first causes" could happen, therefore there must have a beginning.
If you don't agree with that, please solve infinity or give an alternative example with same value.
But it's only one way, I asked you why it's a better way than string theories 10 spatial dimensions and you have not answered me.
Suppose space was apparently 1d
This is commonly used in cosmology. It's called lineland. 2D is flatland.
This could be envisioned by a thin cylinder, with a Planck sized radius. . If we place a circle on it that is the particle in a 1d space, which is actually 2d.
You cant have a cylinder or a radius or a circle in 1D space (lineland) You can 'mathematically parameterise' a ID space into single variable points on a circle or cylinder. In other words, if you zoomed into a circle section then it 'LOOKS LIKE' a straight line but this is a mathematical concept, not a physical reality of a 1D space! So we CANNOT place a circle on it that is the particle in a 1d space, which is actually 2d. This particle cannot exist IN REALITY to turn a 1D space into a 2D space or lineland into flatland, so you cant continue the process and turn 2D into 4D.
I don't mind mathematical modeling, it's an essential tool but I need to understand that your model here does not break any actual rules of physics. It may be that I don't understand the 'valid logic,' involved here. If I don't then direct me to a site with one or more examples that demonstrate the model you are using here and then if I am convinced that the maths and physics you are employing here are valid, we can move on towards your modeling of virtual particles.
Ok fine, so first cause...mindless spark.....no significance....move on.
Quoting SpaceDweller
You create unnecessary emotive BS with the 'god' label and the 'sacrificed' label.
These suggest beneficent intent which is much more about your ego and emotional needs than it has to do with truth. So NO I reject your stealth tactic to invoke the 'supernatural sacrifice' imagery installed in you based on your past exposure to the Christian doctrine.
Quoting SpaceDweller
God is not dead, as the anthropomorphic entity you are attempting to conjure never ever existed and therefore if it never 'lived' then it cannot be dead. I am not suggesting an anthropomorphic 'first cause.' I am suggesting a mindless spark that is gone in the same way that the spark of a flame is gone.
You can have a new spark to make a new universe if you like but that also gets used up.
The very first spark to start the whole process is just that, the first mindless spark. That spark came from nothing and I accept that something can come from nothing WITHOUT INTENT.
If you can't accept that then in my opinion, the theistic delusion will continue to fog you.
You should so do that! Becoming a webmaster is quite easy today. You can quickly learn HTML. WML and CSS very quickly using a site such as code academy or by buying a few books.
That way you could create and maintain your own websites easily. If you invite others to join your site and discuss your ideas in cosmology, you could get your T.o.E out there amongst the physics and cosmology community. Have you looked at @Angelo Cannata 's site at http://www.spi.st
You could set up something similar. You could PM him about it.
Fine, I have nothing to add to your choice.
For me this is insufficient\incoherent conclusion.
:roll:
In string theory, the 10d structure is a static one. The partiicles themselves are strings and branes moving through it, and that's where the trouble starts. Just imagine the 5d Kaluza -Klein case...
Imagine a cylinder. From afar it's 1d. A circle in it has only one direction to move in. Same for an S1xS1xS1 structure in 3d : three directions to move in. So the particle is a tiny geometrical structure. Which can be filled with charge.
A mindless first spark? :chin:
Which is equivalent to the gods believe. It's a believe. Do you have proof for this spark, magically appearing out of nowhere?
Two particles never can get closer than a Planck length. What's the distance between two circles on top of each other?
My detailed knowledge of string theory just is not there but I know it only proposes 1 type of string.
It's the way strings vibrate in 10D that creates all the 'particle' states we see in 3D.
By static, do you mean not expanding?
Quoting Hillary
No, a line is the distance is just a line in the distance. Lineland is used but it's an idealised picture.
I dimension means an extent which has forwards and backwards only with no thickness or height, no up/down, no side to side. So you cant have a circle in it as a circle needs two dimensions. Give me an example link that explains how you can get a 2d circle in a 1d model.
I see no relation between your description of a particle and my 'mindless first spark,' first cause suggestion. I do not conjecture regarding any attributes of my suggested first spark like charge for example or spin or mass or any other such attribute.
Quoting Hillary
I don't need proof to provide a posit which is easily the equal of the god posit and more rational.
Quoting Hillary
So 'static' is not the aspect that makes the difference then!
for Lorentz invariance, I found:
Lorentz invariance expresses the proposition that the laws of physics are the same for different observers, for example, an observer at rest on Earth or one who is rotated through some angle, or traveling at a constant speed relative to the observer at rest. It is the pillar of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and every experiment conducted to date has verified it. But if new, far more sensitive experiments could detect a very faint field pervading the cosmos, one that exerts a force on electron spin, that would topple Lorentz invariance
That just takes us back to the proper length and proper time measures of the isolated reference frame used to help exemplify special relativity.
What's this got to do with two circles on top of each other? I would say they merge into a single taller circle, no distance between them until you part them again.
If you see a cylinder with Planck radius from far away, what does it look like? If the particle is a circle around the cylinder, it can move in one direction only. The circle goes around the cylinder (while being on it.
If two different particles, circles, are on top of each other, the distance ain't zero, because parts don't touch. The distance is in order of Planck. Because the extra dimension is perpendicular to the bulk, it's Lorenz invariant.
Like the 2d cylinder gives a way for particles (circles) to be embedded in, so the 6d space a means for 3d circles to be embedded in. The particles don't have to move trough a 6d space also, like in string theory.
Friend, you indeed don't need a proof, but a definition would suffice, however unfortunately you don't have that either.
You're talking about something that is a complete unknown.
Like I said, consider the 1d circle. If on a cylinder, how many directions are there for the circle to move in? Only one! Just as on a line. Now do as is done in string theory (which posits even 26 extra dimensions!). For the 1d case (or 3d with one extra which is Kaluza-Klein theory), i.e., a 1d space with one small dimension. A cylinder. Now consider a point particle or small string on it. There is a fundamental difference.
As I typed then, as good as the god posit and more rational and more likely.
This does not help. You can't see anything with a Planck radius, even with our most powerful microscopes and you cant have a circle in 1d.
Quoting Hillary
From a physicist:
Particles are not like billiard balls; they don't have a well-defined "surface" that could "touch" another particle. Instead, they are described by waves, which are extended. There are two types of waves: bosonic waves and fermionic waves. Bosonic waves can overlap. Fermionic waves cannot. In one case the waves are always touching (they are spread out and they overlap); in the other case they can never touch
Quoting Hillary
You are using inaccurate terminology. A circle has an inner 2d space. Its curvature or circumference can be parametised to 1d but a CIRCLE is on a 2d plane. You can have a 1d curvature but you cant have a 1d circle. I have no idea what you mean by 'small string on it' strings are vibrational states, they are not ON anything as they are posited as the fundamental component of everything.
If a "Mindless Spark" created the universe and the creatures in it in it's own image, then the atheist is the living proof!
Yes. But if the circle is wrapped around the cylinder it can only move along the cylinder axis. Which means one dimension.
Yes. The standard view. How then can they couple to a field of virtual gauge particles?
Which doesn't mean that particles are no 3d Planck volumes, looking pointlike from 3 directions. If you're a rigid 1d circle, a circle, on a thin cylinder, you can only move forward or backwards, not around it. If you meet another circle, your distance to it is not zero, though you can't get closer.
Can't you imagine a thin cylinder? We can't see a Calabi-Yau manifold either. Or even a 26d variation of it. Or branes. Or vibrating strings.
If you place a circular piece of paper on the surface of a pipe (cylinder) then you can slide it around in 2d. 4 directions, forwards, backwards, left and right.
Quoting Hillary
As I suggested before 'virtual' means not real. Virtual gauge particles don't exist, they are mathematical concepts. Some exchange goes on between particles when they 'interact,' but we only have mathematical models of what's going on.
Quoting Hillary
Why would the circle be rigid? point particles behave like waves not ping pong balls.
Two circles 'meeting' on the curved surface would interact like waves if they are bosonic and would not be able to interact like waves if they are fermionic.
But it's the motion in the large dimension that counts. The circle might rotate around the cylinder and that can be interpreted as spin in the 3d case.
Sure, I can start with a tin foil pipe shape and imagine it has very little thickness but if it has no thickness then it disappears from my view but I can still imagine that it's there but is too thin for me to see.
Quoting Hillary
I know, which is why science uses modeling to hypothesize but that doesn't make virtual particles real or bring Calabi-Yau manifolds/strings/branes/10 dimensions onto existence. Such may exist in reality we don't know yet.
No. You said undetectable means not real. Which is the question. What the math in qft describes are litterally particles rotating in spacetime with an infinity of independent momenta and energies.
Why?
The flexible paper circle on the surface of the pipe can also rotate(spin) as well as move in 4 directions
Yes, but some things are obviously just math, without a counterpart in reality. Such a thing is string theory. Just consider its early incarnation 5d Kaluza-Klein theory. Non-quantum but inconsistent. Radion fields dont exist. Like many inventions, if not all, in string theory.
Like I said, for the bulk motion only one component matters, like the 3 for tiny Planck spheres. The rotation degree of freedom has only implications for spin, not for motion in the large dimension. Just imagine you're a small circle on the cylinder, or a tiny Planck sphere on the 6d space. Its fun!
Do you have the quote where I typed that?
Quoting Hillary
From the ask a physicist site:
It seems strange to abandon the idea of rotation when talking about angular momentum, but there it is. Somehow particles have angular momentum, in almost every important sense, even acting like a gyroscope, but without doing all of the usual rotating. Instead, a particle’s angular momentum is just another property that it has, like charge or mass. Physicists use the word “spin” or “intrinsic spin” to distinguish the angular momentum that particles “just kinda have” from the regular angular momentum of physically rotating things
The same can be said for the musings of the DIMP guy, the mobius strip/klein bottle guy and you, the 4d torus guy.
The difference being, that the 6d spacetime with 3d Planck spheres offers more explanations. It's no torus, by the way...
That's not the rotation I talk about. You refer to spin. That's something different. The spin can be described by Planck spheres rotating. A small, non pointlike charge distribution creates magnetic moment.
Oh? You have changed your hypothesis? I will need to update your reference to the 6D manifold guy.
Haha! No, I've always said it's only the inside part of the torus. It resembles a wormhole and has negative curvature. The outside part is absent. It's cut open to make the inside part stretch to infinity. SemiTorus strikes again...
Eventually, the first existence from the dawn of time would be the first cause in dependent nature, and that is the universe itself. This means the universe corresponds with the inherent existence because of its unchanging nature. At the same time, perceptible truth would arise in the context of absolute truth, without exception. For example, it is impossible to measure the process of becoming unless one manipulates it in an observer mode, namely to grasp things with labels such as last Monday, next Tuesday, 3.25 pm, Friday 13th, 2020, etc. And the process of becoming observed varies with different observers under fluctuating vibrational frequencies, for instance, different planes of existence.
In the end, the absolute truth would be called the flux of spacetime a.k.a. the process of becoming. However, it is inappropriate to label the process of becoming either like this or like that because it has no beginning and no end in nature. In other words, anything that exists intrinsically will not involve change and the created objects cannot exist intrinsically because it implies change. Therefore, any activity resulting from variation cannot exist inherently, as there will be processes that will change over and over again. This means that there is an infinitely evolving multiverse within the sphere of existence a.k.a. the Universe.
I think he's closer to what physically happened than you can ever imagine. I actually know what existed before the big inflation from where space and thermodynamic time emerged inflationary. And lemme tellya, @val p miranda is damned close!
Sorry universeness, but here you are parroting the so-called experts. Not observable doesn’t mean virtual. We can imagine them. The moment you try to observe them, they become one of the external legs in Feynman diagrams and then they are not virtual anymore. So in a sense, the assumption that they are virtual is a hallucination, a dogma
The pleasure is mine! :wink:
1. There must be, in Aristotelian terms, an efficient cause (primum movens).
2. There must be nothing
That's a contradiction, oui?
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
This is a juvenile argument. No one is denying that the present is what exists. The issue is that you keep saying there is no past. Stop talking about present and future. Focus on the issue. Your DNA is dependent upon the past. Your argument avoids the issue because you focus on everything but the proof that the past is real.
I am telling you that the past is real, and you think that you can disprove the past by talking about motion, present, future, etc., lol. None of these are arguments that say the past is not real, this is called a non-sequitur. The present does not disprove the past. Motion does not disprove the past. Time as a concept of movement does not entail an argument against the concept of past. Future is its own concept that does not entail an argument against the concept of the past.
The present is a notion of what is occurring "now". The future is a concept of what will occur after "now".
The past is a concept of what has occurred before "now".
"Now" does not prove that the past does not exist.
"Now" does not disprove that the past exists.
"Now" does not prove that the future does not exist.
"Now" does not disprove that the future exists.
"Now" exists because of motion.
"Motion" does not prove that the past does not exist.
"Motion" does not disprove that the past exists.
"Motion" does not prove that the future does not exist.
"Motion" does not disprove that the future exists.
Admit that you have no viable argument against the past other than to continuously talk about everything other than the past. Thus your argument is a non-sequitur.
The present exists, correct. The past is what has existed, and the future is what shall exist later.
The only way to adequately posit your argument against the past, is to say that the past never occurred in the first place. To which I will say, your memory is proof of the past, DNA is proof of the past, scars are proof of the past, development is proof of the past.
Saying that the present is only what exists, does not disprove the past. You can believe that the present is all that exists. But that is not a proof that the past does not exist.
Quoting val p miranda
You remember events that happened when? If the past did not exist then you would remember events that are happening only right now. But that does not make sense, do you know why? Because the very definition of "remembering" is the recollection of past events. You see in the English language, the prefix "re" in this regard refers to "again", "repetition", etc.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/re-
Now, very easily, if you watch a movie from the past, and you do admit that movies exist right?
So, let's say you watch a movie from the past...
You say that the present is only what exists. Therefore, the movie shows the past and what existed in the past. But according to your argument you are saying that what the movie shows, exists right now?
So if your mother dies, and we have a video of her, does that mean your mother is still alive? Does the movie show the current existence of your mother's life? Or does the movie show the past existence of your mother's life?
Do you think that the DNA of your mother is part of the movie? Do you think that your dead mother is existing inside of the movie?
If we watch an old video from the 1900s and everyone in the video is currently dead, then how can we see them in the video? I mean, you said that only the present exists right? But they are dead.
Everyone in the video is currently dead, but the video exists right now, the present is all that exists, therefore the physical video exists right now, but here is the problem, the video conveys a meaning that represents people who are no longer alive Val P. The past is a meaning Val P, and this meaning as you admit, must exist right now. :)
You have thus, now been defeated.
Oh, btw, I'm sure that you will respond with one sentence saying time, or present, only exists, etc.
I am not interested, take care. I am not here to make you change your mind. :nerd:
To the past we are connected by the virtual axis of time, a n ideal clock variable, it, extending to the first virtual cauldron from which it all emerged into real existence.
Your use of the term 'parroting' is a rather simplistic and unsuccessful attempt to dissuade people from listening to experts. A sinister but easily defeated tactic normally employed by the likes of Donald Trump and his supporters. As you say, you can only imagine virtual particles, that's because they are, like I said, not real and merely part of mathematical modeling, and yes, that's what the EXPERTS say.
Repeating what the experts say is a more reliable path to follow than repeating what you say about gods.
Quoting Hillary
Was that how you created your gods? Did you try to observe them and then did you draw an external god leg in a Feynman diagram and then publish that scientific paper to the world as proof at last that gods exist? Has that paper been published and peer-reviewed yet?
Exactly what I meant. Parroting the experts. It's exactly the point of disagreement though. There are so-called experts who say virtual particles are real, and the mathematical expressions a mere woowoo fantasy, which is unjustified given real existence It is stated that a particle is an excitation. But then a fluctuation is just as real. Only the fluctuations are not directly observed. Only indirectly.
So, it's parroting, and your comparison to Trump is made to elevate yourself to a height you don't have. Like I said, there are physicists who consider the virtuals real. The math has to describe something. Particles! Not on mass-shell.
It's not a matter of majority votes if they are real or not...
That's how they created the universe.
That's so annoying to me! I proofread twice and that still got past me (now corrected!)
Quoting Hillary
I accept that many 'experts' assign a form of 'existence' to virtual particles but I dont think many of them would use the term REAL for VIRTUAL particles as used in perturbation theory.
From wiki:
[i]A virtual particle is a transient quantum fluctuation that exhibits some of the characteristics of an ordinary particle, while having its existence limited by the uncertainty principle. The concept of virtual particles arises in the perturbation theory of quantum field theory where interactions between ordinary particles are described in terms of exchanges of virtual particles. A process involving virtual particles can be described by a schematic representation known as a Feynman diagram, in which virtual particles are represented by internal lines.
Virtual particles do not necessarily carry the same mass as the corresponding real particle, although they always conserve energy and momentum. The closer its characteristics come to those of ordinary particles, the longer the virtual particle exists. They are important in the physics of many processes, including particle scattering and Casimir forces. In quantum field theory, forces such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges can be thought of as due to the exchange of virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction.
The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles". It is not. "Real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate.] Although widely used, they are by no means a necessary feature of QFT, but rather are mathematical conveniences - as demonstrated by lattice field theory, which avoids using the concept altogether[/i]
:roll:
Let''s keep the gods out of it. Concentrate on the science. What you suggest is that because I posit gods, my physics is not to be trusted. Think about it! :down:
You think that's not the case, apart from gods, the quantum vacuum is filled with fluctuations?
All that you are influences all that you do and say! You will not escape that, ever!
Yes, loops are used in perturbation theory. The vacuum contains no real particles but virtual particles are there! The quantum bubbles. Closed isolated loops, which interact with other virtuals (higher order Feynman diagrams). What do you mean if you say the fluctuation is real? Isn't that even weirder? Virtual, in this context and in my humble opinion, just means not on mass-shell. You know what on mass-shell means? It's pretty unreal!
But my physics is inspired by them. Not a bad thing, as far as I can see... :wink:
I know, we have descriptions such as:
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (also known as a vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. They are minute random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons, W and Z fields which carry the weak force, and gluon fields which carry the strong force. Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs. Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. This is theoretically allowable because the particles annihilate each other within a time limit determined by the uncertainty principle so they are not directly observable
But this is a MODEL of what is going on within the 'broiling' vacuum of space.
It's certainly true, that it is completely wrong, to try to suggest there is a point of spacial existence where absolutely nothing is happening, no activity at all.
Science currently has very very very little knowledge of what is actually going on in the vacuum of space. Particles probably don't exist in the traditional point particle or small free, disconnected spherical forms we have envisaged in the past. They probably are field excitations and 'Virtual particles' are just some form of field excitation we really don't understand. Just like we don't understand phenomena such as quantum tunneling.
Our understanding of quantum physics is still at an infantile stage.
Your claim that you have solved the greatest mystery we have is just that, an individual's claim.
One can believe in it if one chooses to ignore experts who dissent against it.
Or take the approach to all of life. What about locking up animals in a cage to see what happens if an A-bomb explodes? Suits the scientist well, not to think evil truly exists. Atheism is a freepass to investigate without the ethics proposed by theism, say torturing animals. Life is not considered sacred anymore, i.e., having evolved on a substrate-reality, made by the gods
You consider the many worlds in the MWI real?
Exactly!
No, at this point, I don't know what on mass-shell means but from wiki:
In physics, particularly in quantum field theory, configurations of a physical system that satisfy classical equations of motion are called "on the mass shell" or simply more often on shell; while those that do not are called "off the mass shell", or off shell.
I am aware of the classical equations of motion such as speed=distance/time etc
[i]In quantum field theory, virtual particles are termed off shell because they do not satisfy the energy–momentum relation; real exchange particles do satisfy this relation and are termed on shell (mass shell).
In classical mechanics for instance, in the action formulation, extremal solutions to the variational principle are on shell and the Euler–Lagrange equations give the on-shell equations. Noether's theorem regarding differentiable symmetries of physical action and conservation laws is another on-shell theorem[/i]
I am not familiar with 'the action formulation,' 'the variational principle,' 'the Euler-Lagrange equations,' 'Noether's theorem' etc but I have often suggested that you look to qualified physicists to debate your more detailed academic physics musings with.
I don't accept your physics viewpoints because many physicists disagree with you as has been demonstrated on quora.
But J do know. Particles are no points, but tiny higher dimensional spheres, filled with charge or transporting energy and momentum, like photons. Or carrying metric of spacetime metric. Or carrying energy and momentum and color or electric charge. Or supercolor charge There are 7 basic charges and all couple to the virtual fields, the quantum vacuum, ti interact. Space is made of virtual particles, in a sense. Real particles couple to it to interact. Coupling to the virtual graviton field causes spacetime to curve (graviton condensate).
:rofl: Yeah, in history, theists have treated animals very well, in-between sacrificing them and looking at their entrails to figure out what your gods want them to do next :rofl:
I find most atheists more ethical than most theists. The bible supports slavery and sees women as of less value to men and on and on it goes. All religious texts contain morally reprehensible suggestions.
Quoting Hillary
I have answered this a few times now. I refer you back to those answers.
Quoting Hillary
I for one choose absolutely not to!
I think many physicists can shoot so many holes in your above arguments that there is little left of any value.
Many do agree. There are upvotes from two acknowledged physics professors. Book writers. And what about Harari? The problem with experts is that the ones who trust them dint know much about it.. Only when you know what they think you can truly attack them. The layman, like you, just has to trust... which never has been a good base, lemme tellya.
And of course experts might not agree. But thats not falsifying. Of course they disagree. The status quo offers them food and status. And the taxpayer pays. Easy job. Doing nothing of importance and getting free lunch! :rofl:
Why dont you start learning actual physics? Someone who doesn't know what on mass in particle physics means telling that virtual particles are not real because the majority says so...? :lol:
Untill now, they havent succeeded! :lol: Note even one! :lol:
Loose bullets, only. Only softly touching.
And approval from the expert! Look here
And don't say, "that's only one!"...
"Is all of space one big excitation of fields?" :lol:
Two people and a nice note from Harari is not 'many.'
There are levels of laypeople. I am not a physicist. I got an A at higher grade but failed the physics exam at the end of my 1st year Uni course. I also failed the resit and had to carry a different Ist year uni subject into 2nd year but I aced that so well, that I got an exemption from the final exam at the end of 2nd year. I have progressed my physics since then based on my own studies and some online courses I have completed on edx.org since retiring.
Quoting Hillary
I am quite happy with my current grasp of physics, if my life direction means I need a better grasp then I will get a better grasp.
Quoting Hillary
'Photons are not absorbed' :rofl: and you are supposed to understand physics much better than I do.
'Dino gods!, every extinct species has a surviving god!, people gods and insect gods!' :lol: :rofl: and you are suppose to be a logician with a good grasp of physics!!
Again, just to try again, to encourage you to be more accurate!
I actually asked 'is all of space one big field of excitations?' :razz:
I think they have succeeded very well.
I looked at your link. You merely provided your answer to the question:
Is string theory only the stuff of speculation and hypothesis?
I would have broadly answered yes to that question myself but I would have added that it has a lot more credibility than the suggestion that gods made the Universe.
Where was your answer approved by an expert?
I would suggest most 'experts' and most physics laypeople would broadly answer yes to that question.
I also think most would answer 'yes' to 'can photons be absorbed?'
How many physics experts answered no to that question?
I knew you would say this! No, but thats because most stick to the mass haucination. Because not being very enlightened or because of lost esteem, or even career. Money!
Im not bound to any community. A free spirit. No need for money, no career at stake, no standard to conform to. Standing on the outside, looking in. Looking through the madness.
Now again you bring the gods in. Leave them! You just use that to discredit. I have a complete theory for the cosmos. That should suffice.
I try not to dissappoint!
Quoting Hillary
Or in other words 'that which is much more credible and more likely to be correct.'
Quoting Hillary
People in glass houses should not throw stones! Are you suggesting that all those on the fringes of physics have no interest in status, esteem, career, money etc. :roll:
If you want to judge others then expect to be judged by others, that's only fair!
How can it be absorbed? Are there photons in electrons. No.
What happens when an infrared photon from the sun hits your skin? Does your skin absorb the photon as heat energy?
From quora:
It happens as follows :
Photons from the Sun strike your skin .
In this process, they may collide with the electron .
The electron gains energy from the photon and gets promoted to a higher energy state .
The electron then stabilizes itself by releasing energy .
This energy is nothing but the warmth or heat energy that the sun makes us feel .
Again you use the gods. Leave them! You're a layman in physics. So you can't understand what I'm talking about. So learn some real physics. Not the popular books ala Brian Greene or Rovelli, Penrose, or your idol. But the real stuff. Then we talk! The way we do it now is you just saying I believe in gods. Jesus, whats your problem with that?
I did not bring gods alongside physics, you did! You invented them and you try to convince others they exist, just like you are trying to convince others your version of physics is correct. You want the two posits to be unrelated but THEY ARE NOT, as you claim gods made physics!
I know what it means. But it makes no sense. There are no photons inside of electrons. So, absorption is woowoo! :rofl:
Once. But not now. Im talking physics now, and every time you dont understand or disagree you say "how can that be if you believe in gods", or something like that. So let them stay where they are, ignore them think they dont exist! Whats the problem with that? Imagine Im an atheist!
I understand that most physicists disagree with you. I know that, as none of the names you mentioned such as Penrose, Rovelli, et al propose anything like you for the origin story.
You ultimately posit gods as the origin story! That's my problem with that!
I wont try anymore. If you think they dont exist, so what? I dont mind! But you seem to mind I do.
Fire produces smoke, does the smoke exist inside the flame?
Well, just ignore it! Assume the timeless 5D quantum vacuum eternal.
Of course. Smoke resides in the fire... :lol:
Unlike you, I do not consider my imagination a reliable source of truth!
Quoting Hillary
I do mind someone who wants to claim they know the physics of the origin of the Universe and their ultimate conclusion is gods did it. Yes, I am going to advocate that others should question the physics conclusions that such a person is trying to suggest are fact.
Penrose is close to my cosmology, in the sense that its a cyclic model. But he offers no solution for DE. I proposed the model on PSE. No comments. Only question closure. So much for free science...
We see again the importance of accuracy!
I said is smoke inside the flame, not the fire.
Is fire inside phosphorus or is it a reaction to oxygen?
Photons are emitted/absorbed by electrons due to specific interactive conditions.
Electrons have mass, photons don't. Photon absorption is an energy exchange which 'excites' the electron (increases its energy level) and makes it move faster, creating increased heat!
Ten take it as an axiom Im an atheist!
Do you think many worlds, so beloved by your idol, are real?
Of course. Ghe photon is absorbed or emitted. An electron stuffed with photons... :lol:
Or else they were just fed up answering questions that they consider are more at the level of 'crank physics,' like the idea that energy levels cannot be increased because energy cannot be absorbed!
Cows are sacred in Hindustan, but India's the largest or one of the largest exporters of beef! Go figure.
Then there's Hanuman, the monkey god, a central figure in the epic Ramayana. Meanwhile...in Indian research centers, monkeys are kept in appalling conditions. What's up with that?
Cognitive dissonance...at a scale that would make psychologists go huh :chin: ??!! Other countries don't fare better of course.
"Crank physics" yes, aaaalright. The usual accusation. Just start to learn actual physics. So you might actually understand what I write. Like prof. Harari.
Yeah, :roll: thats what I am suggesting, in the same way I suggested a flame is stuffed with smoke and phosphorus is stuffed with fire! Just like the ancients who believed there were 4 elements only in science earth, air, fire and water! Do you suggest we go back to that?
Where did J suggest that?
Woowoo! :lol:
Good examples of theistic hypocrisy!
And what about the monkeys to know, in the name of science...
Woowoo to you too! do you like old steam train whistles?
Woooowoooooo! :lol:
All such monkeys are too busy trying to type out the full works of Shakespeare!
Shakespeare a con. What about life being tortured in the name of science? And they even get a medal for it. Not the monkeys...
What's your problem with theism? Man, you're worse than the watchtower preachers. The witnesses...
If you had some knowledge of physics I would accept that. But you havent! :lol:
Well, I was just suggesting that if we all just accept that everything in the Universe is 'stuffed' with some combination from earth, air, fire and water based on your accusation that I am claiming electrons are stuffed with photons, then your physics T.o.E might become more popular and people will accept the final sentence you will be compelled to write in your physics paper when it's finally ready to be published. I suggest it will be something like:
"So based on all the evidence I have cited in this paper my final conclusion is, gods did it all, Wooooooooooooo Woooooooooooooo!''
Exactly! If they have a better theory from where the TD timeless 5D quantum vacuum came.... But they dont! Woooowoooooooo!!! :party:
You totally and utterly seriously lost me here... woowoooooo!
I was just trying to be as ridiculous as you were being.
You implied that I envisaged an electron as being stuffed with photons.
I tried to explain to you that I found your suggestion as ridiculous as suggesting that everything in the Universe was made from the 4 elements the ancients believed made up the Universe.
Your point here is moot as I am not challenging your physics with mine, I am challenging your physics with what other physicists say.
How else if you envision it as absorbed? The photon just stays the photon. If two electrons have couple by means if the photon, the photon gets closed from a line to a circle again. Return to the quantum bubble.
You lost me. Who talks about water fire air and earth. You! Still dont understand why you write universum with a U...
Quoting universeness
But you dont understand other physicists. What then do they say? Quote please! you make things up!
I gave examples of profs who agree. Where are the arguments of the experts you refer to? Please, evidence instead of "the expert says".
A photon is an energy packet, not a billiard ball, of course, it can be absorbed. What's happening in photosynthesis if energy cant be absorbed?
Quoting Hillary
Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely. We all have our subject specialisations. I probably know a lot more about computing science than you will ever know about physics but such comparisons are fruitless and pointless.
There are so many people way more qualified and much more experienced than you who describe all sorts of photon emissions and absorption examples on websites like quora. I would need volume sized space here to paste them all, two quick examples below.
Allan Steinhardt
PhD,Author,"Radar in the Quantum Limit",Formerly DARPA's Chief Scientist,
First off, two photon absorption is pretty darn critical for cellular biology. An application of it was granted the most recent (2014) Nobel Prize. See STED microscopy for the technical details, and Page on nobelprize.org for official press release. Here is how it works and why it won a Nobel Prize. Two photon absorption involves striking an atom's electron with a one-two punch of photons fast enough that the electron can't emit the usual photon it would have emitted if just one photon struck it............
Viktor T. Toth
IT pro, part-time physicist
Information Technology Professional
Studied at Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Lives in Ottawa, ON
105.9M content views1.8M this month
Top Writer2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Forbes, Apple News and 1 more
When the photon energy is less than what it takes to make the electron free, the electron indeed only absorbs photons at specific energies, allowing it to jump between energy levels.
But when a photon has more energy than it takes to free the electron altogether, the electron is not bound to specific energy levels. It can absorb any such photon, become free, and all the excess energy that it receives turns into kinetic energy for the electron.
Think of the energy levels as a finite set of (ever more closely spaced) distinct levels, followed by a continuum of levels.
It's a particle just as an electron. The electron is made if three massless particles. The difference between the massless photon and the massless sub is that the massless sub contains pure kinetic energy and the photon pure potential energy.
Quoting universeness
Which only goes to show you dont know much about it. I know enough about the brain. Computers dont interest me even one mm.
So. It's potential energy that's absorbed. Not the photon containing it. When delivered, it returns in the vacuum.
A god, better, lots of them, are logical necessary to provide final closure. If the final gap is closed, only gods offer reason. A logical conclusion. You can't argue gods away by logic.
Hello Hillary. According to the logic I've presented, I haven't argued away the possibility of a God, but I have argued away their necessity. Take the premises below:
1. It is necessary that something is self-explained.
2. If something is self-explained, there are no prior rules that explain why it existed.
3. Because there are no rules that limit why or how a self-explained existence can be, one cannot put a limit on what could possibly be self-explained when one does not know the origin(s) of the universe.
A god would be one type of possible self-explained entity. But so is anything else. A spec of dust. An atom. A bang. All of these are possible. As such, a God is not necessary. I wrote a separate OP going into more detail here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins/p1
It is not necessary something is self explained. The universe can't explain it's own existence. Gods, being eternally intelligent, don't need an explanation. Gods are the only reasonable reason for the universe's existence.
Quoting universeness
The point is, you don't understand what my theory is about. And you can call in the physical infantery, the "hot-shots", but they dont have a true counter. And WTF means highly unlikely? More likely that they are right? Oooookaaaaay.... woowoooooooo... kedeng kedeng....woowoooo!!!
Good, so you agree with everyone :up:
Quoting val p miranda
Only a record of what exists now?
Quoting val p miranda
Ahh, yes you are finally learning. Welcome to reality. Good job buddy :)
How can you know if you dont understand my ToE. I have shown the basics, very carefully not to get banned, but the only counter offered was none or ban, or reference to what's the standard, which is perfectly circular. But I understand them. They have a career to care about and esteem to be worried about. Luckily there are exceptions. Fir example, Cosmas Zachos, writer of a book on QM in phasespace, simply says he simply doesnt know.
This is too simplistic, reality is more nuanced than this quote suggests imo.
As I copied and pasted the text you typed in your past, I brought the textual representation of your thoughts into my present. Anyone also reading your original posting at any moment in their 'now,' effectively brings something from your past into their present. The same connection/refresh of past events are brought into anyone's present when they read a book/look at a photo/listens to a story etc.
There is an issue with such recordings or renditions of past events, as exemplified by god fables, in that the reader/listener/viewer is reliant on the truth of the recording or rendition of past events.
If I think something trivial and simple like I will make myself a coffee in 5 minutes from now, then I am predicting an event in my own future. I can absolutely make that prediction come true. So I can in some simple but accurate ways, predict many events in my own future. I can use a similar method to predict events in your future, from 'you will eat food tomorrow,' 'you will sleep within the next 24 hours' etc. These predictions could prove inaccurate but will be accurate in most cases.
Future, present and past events are more related/interconnected than you suggest imo.
Your first premise is false because it should start with "IF" rather than "IT", that is, under assumption that something is self-explained rather than claim that something is self-explained.
We know nothing in the nature is self-explained, do you have anything that is self-explanatory?
I think there are only two significant points that remain between us on the issue of your physics, your rationale and your dalliances with polytheism.
You often express emotive outbursts such as the text-based sound effects you simulate above.
Many people do this to a lesser or greater degree than you do, including me. You however have very honestly declared yourself bipolar. I think this should be fully recognised and respected as a very honourable declaration but such text-based sound effects are going to leave some people, me included, with the question of 'is he having an episode.' I have cited Stephen Fry as someone who deals with the condition very well in my opinion even though he has had some very difficult times because of it.
I hope and I am sure you will turn bipolar highs into positive effects in your life, and you will ensure bipolar lows don't cause too much damage in your life. It's a matter for you to decide if bipolar highs/lows contribute to you getting banned from discussion forums and contribute to your dalliances with polytheism. Please don't assume that I am suggesting all polytheists are bipolar (sorry to all Hindus if I am giving that impression) or that the only reason you are polytheist is because you are bipolar. I am more referring to your more superfringe statements such as the dinosaurs had their own separate god as does every species that has ever lived and all these gods are eternal and continue their existence in heaven.
The final point I wish to make to you is regarding physics. Since I left Uni I have worked within my degree field. So my knowledge of Computing Science was greatly enhanced because I had daily experience of enhancement in the subject as it became my way of making a living.
You have not revealed your working experience in physics. Has your expertise been honed in physics due to your career path? Those two examples I gave of Victor T. Toth and Allan Steinhard earlier certainly have honed their skills in physics and folks from Roger Penrose to Alan Guth and the younger mob such as Brian Cox, certainly have as well. Have you?
I personally will always default to the credence of the physics posits of Penrose, Guth, Cox and folks like Toth and Steinhard over @Hillary even if Hillary gets some support for one of his notions about the Higgs mechanism from one or two qualified people on quora. Especially when one or two equally qualified people completely disagreed with his notion regarding the Higgs.
I don't think there is much more to be gained by either of us by exchanging with each other as much as we have in the past. I will respond to you a lot less in the future as we have very little common ground but I do thank you for the exchanges we have had. I am certainly not saying 'never again,' but our future exchanges will be much reduced on my part.
Quoting SpaceDweller
I proved it was logically necessary here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary
How do posits like the multiverse or the Penrose bounce affect your view on the infinite regression and a necessary first cause? Does it not matter how many times, time is reset back to 0?
Is it only the 'first time' that time progressed from t=0 that a first cause is needed? and if so, does it matter how far back that was? Would this first cause still need to have a significance to our Universe other than as some original mindless spark that occurred at the start of an unknown number of t=o resets ago?
No, not at all.
Quoting universeness
No.
Quoting universeness
No.
Your link took me to p19 of your thread titled 'A first cause is logically necessary.
I take it that the proof you were referring to was in the OP of that thread (p1) and your XYZ statements regarding causality. This thread's OP ruminates on the 'something from nothing,' debate.
Laurence Kraus wrote a whole book on the issue, titled, 'A Universe from nothing.'
A appreciate the connection between the two threads. Something from nothing and first cause.
I am sure the 19 page dialogue on your thread dealt with the issues involved.
Your answer to my last question was no so I assume you are confirming that in your opinion, if there ever was a first cause, it may well have no significance at all, to our current Universe and therefore the theists are wasting their energy when the show deference to the god posit? Do you agree?
I would aslo like to ask, after your 19 page thread and the comments the contributors made,
did you have any doubts about the 'causality' route as being absolutely fundamental to the question of origin of the Universe?
Here is a counter view from quora:
Absolutely not; causality is a useful concept when we observe all the effects in existence and seek to find causes for all those effects. Existence itself is not an effect and does not have a prior cause. I find this condition of physical reality to be quite intriguing that existence as a whole is not an effect and has no cause, yet all the apparently separate things - objects and forces - are effects that have causes. It appears that it is our capacity to perceive that enables us to discern one thing from another which is responsible for this apparent dichotomy of causality / non-causality.
Wiki has very good detail and 'historicity' on causality at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
I don't know if such was already discussed ad nauseam in your thread but I thought,
Since causality is a subtle metaphysical notion, considerable intellectual effort, along with exhibition of evidence, is needed to establish knowledge of it in particular empirical circumstances. According to David Hume, the human mind is unable to perceive causal relations directly. On this ground, the scholar distinguished between the regularity view on causality and the counterfactual notion. According to the counterfactual view, X causes Y if and only if, without X, Y would not exist. Hume interpreted the latter as an ontological view, i.e., as a description of the nature of causality but, given the limitations of the human mind, advised using the former (stating, roughly, that X causes Y if and only if the two events are spatiotemporally conjoined, and X precedes Y) as an epistemic definition of causality. Having an epistemic concept of causality is needed to distinguish between causal and noncausal relations. The contemporary philosophical literature on causality can be divided into five big approaches to causality. These include the (mentioned above) regularity, probabilistic, counterfactual, mechanistic, and manipulationist views. The five approaches can be shown to be reductive, i.e., define causality in terms of relations of other types. According to this reading, they define causality in terms of, respectively, empirical regularities (constant conjunctions of events), changes in conditional probabilities, counterfactual conditions, mechanisms underlying causal relations, and invariance under intervention.
was worth including here for Hume's opinion alone that 'the human mind is unable to perceive causal relations directly,' when placed in the context of the rest of the text above about epistemology and causality. I tend to concur with the viewpoint that 'existence' does not require a cause.
So does this not clash with:
Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist.
— val p miranda
are you just trying to relabel the future as a continuum of 'present?' Do you see such a distinction as having vital significance or it is a relatively insignificant distinction?
We exist on a linear timeline, our existence is linear. A 1D timeline is a single coordinate system, only x varies, no height and no thickness, so the only directions are forwards (future), position (present) and backwards (past). Are you not just suggesting that the line can also be envisaged as a 'totality of positions,' is that a significant distinction? If you think it is significant, then why?
What? The term uncaused cause makes no sense, it's like saying the nonexistent existent, just nonsense. I appreciate your comments regarding Hume and Kant and I have read some stuff about the PSR, like https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
I appreciate the philosophical views put forward on this origin topic but I prefer the more scientific arguments.
I think 'causality,' has been dealt with most convincingly imo, by folks like Sean Carroll and theories like the Roger Penrose bounce and his 'hawking points' evidence from this Universe.
Sean's arguments point towards no need for a first cause and Roger pushes any first cause, way way back to the start of an oscillating Universe.
Also Laurence Krauss's book 'A Universe from nothing,' is another treatment of the topic I find quite compelling. For me, this is currently enough to completely refute such as the kalam cosmological argument and the god posit as a required first cause.
The latter is self-contradictory, but the former is not. It’s not nonsense to say that a cause is itself uncaused: it causes, but is not caused. However it is nonsense to say that something existing does not exist.
Give me an example to explain what you mean.
God is posited as an entity that can cause processes to happen but was not itself, created.
A quick google search describes the word cause as meaning "a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition"
Cause has 'intent' behind it, so to me, uncaused cause sounds like unintended intent??
Perhaps your example will enlighten me.
I am aware of the term:
As formulated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, the uncaused cause argument is stated as follows: "Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God ."
But I think the logic applied by Aquinas here is a bad one and should not have been accepted as a way to 'sneak in' the god posit.
But can you give me an example that demonstrates it's not a self-contradicting statement?
These are important issues when it comes to the theistic arguments which support the first cause god posit.
Sean Carrol makes the point that objects on frictionless surfaces moving at constant velocity do not need a cause to keep moving. Others counter with, but this is about a sustaining cause not an initial cause.
I realise, you are just discussing the term uncaused cause from the standpoint of logic and contradiction but I think it does fail in that aspect as well. Which rule in propositional logic validates uncaused cause?
If you say God caused the physical universe, that would be an efficient cause. Then you would look at God as needing to be caused as well.
I think Aristotle solves the problem by making the physical world always existing and 'God' (Prime Mover) also uncaused and co-existing.
Did you mean 'efficient' or 'sufficient.' I take it you meant sufficient and in that case, yes, it could be. Science has yet to and may never be able to disprove the god posit.
Quoting Jackson
Yes, unless you are willing to accept such (imo) very dubious (in the best case scenario) as uncaused cause for the specially pleaded case of god.
Quoting Jackson
But surely, if god co-exists with the Universe then, as humans who ask questions, we must ask what gods function is in the same way we strive to understand how the Universe works.
Are you happy with any current description or evidence available that attempts to explain the role god played and now plays in this Universe?
Efficient cause.
Aristotle's god is a principle, not personality. So, no, I never believed in God in any Christian sense.
Why efficient? Do you mean that there are other ways to achieve the same result which would be successful but less efficient?
Efficient cause means how something is caused or changed, especially by an agent.
Ok so you reject all current 'religious' descriptions of god, yes?
But was Aristotle's description not based on an apriori metaphysical viewpoint and as this requires no empirical evidence at all and is only based on human belief, I don't see how Aristotle's description has any more value than belief in any story based on human musings on the supernatural from El and Baal to the Christian god, the Hindu Gods or even @hillary's god for every species that ever existed.
Can you accept god as a 'principle' in the absence of any empirical evidence at all?
Greeks had an idea of nous, which just meant intelligence. So Aristotle's God is nous, or "thought thinking thought."
The fact that Christians built their idea of God on Aristotle (and Plato) makes it difficult to go back to Aristotle and understand that he was just explaining intelligence of the universe.
I cant find examples of that contextual use of the word 'efficient.'
A quick google search offers:
efficiency(of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.
"more efficient processing of information"
synonyms:
well organized · methodical · systematic · structured · well planned · [more]
preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource.
"an energy-efficient heating system"
(of a person) working in a well-organized and competent way.
"an efficient administrator"
synonyms:
well organized · methodical · systematic · structured · well planned · [more]
Which of these would best illustrate your use of 'efficient?'
None.
Efficient Cause
NOUN
philosophy
that which produces an effect by a causal process
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/efficient-cause
Ah, is your viewpoint panpsychist or cosmopsychist?
Quoting Jackson
:grin: Ok, we will drop that one then, unless you want to breath new air into it.
I don't find the distinction useful.
My version of panpsychism is not that all physicality has consciousness, but that all things exhibit intelligence.
Added: Intelligence is found in consciousness but an intelligent event need not have consciousness.
I see you do:
Excuse my lack of knowledge of philosophical academia:
I picked the following from the link you provided:
"The place where the archer moves the projectile was at the start of the flight, and while the projectile sailed through the air, no discernible efficient cause acts on it."
But we now fully understand the motion of an arrow fired by an archer and there certainly is discernable cause acting upon it, such as wind resistance, rain hitting the arrow in flight, and gravity
Or is this example just suggesting that no 'thought' was acting upon the arrow, guiding its flight path.
Not the archers thought or gods thought. The theists would of course suggest that god could influence the flight of the arrow if it wanted to.
The final cause acts, but it acts according to the mode of final causality, as an end or good that induces the efficient cause to act.
This suggests to me that Aristotelian thought suggests that the arrow's path can be altered if this 'efficient cause' has the intent to make it so.
It can not have come into existence without an efficient cause (since that would violate the law of causality, one of the basic laws of thought).
Well, that's the whole issue we are discussing, whether or not there is a law of causality that cannot be violated when considering the origin story of our uinverse.
All efficient causes are produced by the will of a mind or spirit (mind or spirit being that which thinks, wills, and perceives).
But is this your variant of panpsychism that there already exists a Universal mind or conscience and it is not an emergent reality that might become true in the very distant future due to networking transhumans or networking lifeforms from all over the universe?
Always been true.
No. Final cause does not act.
Does not or cannot? is choice invloved?
Using Aristotle here. By definition the final cause is not movement.
For example, I walk to the drugstore to buy allergy medicine. Walking is the efficient cause. Needing relief from allergies is the final cause.
Ok, a clear example, and i get the distinction you are making but in analysing that scenario a little deeper, it seems to me that there are other events to consider, there are two possibilities:
1. I have a prescription or I am low or have ran out of allergy medicine and I need more.
2. I am suffering an allergic reaction and I need allergy medicine.
One of these initial conditions 'caused' you to 'cause' your legs to walk to the drugstore.
Was that FIRST cause another example of 'an efficient cause,' the realisation that you needed allergy medicine. So the condition occurred before the reaction to it.
So in your panpsychist viewpoint did spacetime come before the universal conscience or after it or at the same time?
I nevQuoting universeness
Both, yes? I would not need allergy medicine if I had no allergies.
On terminology: I never used the phrase "universal conscience."
Physicality and intelligence are coexistent, neither came before the other.
Ok, thanks for the exchange about our origin of the Universe viewpoints.
In a way, yes. It isn't that one couldn't prove that a God existed through evidence, but that the existence of the universe does not necessitate that the origin be a God.
Quoting universeness
No, none. Causality is a very useful and easy to prove concept. People may have problems with the generality of the word and desire more specifics, but that doesn't negate its effectiveness.
Quoting universeness
This would be the definition of a first cause. An existence that has post existent causality, but does not have any prior causality for its existence.
Well, I would ask you two questions based on what you have typed above.
1. Do you think the reason that anything exists rather than nothing must follow the current notions of what humans consider impossible?
2. Could you or I come up with a 'first cause,' which is not god as described or conceived by any human ever?
Quoting val p miranda
Ok, but we have to establish what nothing is. The best effort cosmologists can come up with is along the lines of Laurence Krauss and his statement of 'an absence of something.' In other words, there is no satisfactory description of nothing. Humans have quite powerful imaginations yet no matter how much we demand a perception of nothing, the best our imagination can come up with is a black space, and we know 'black' and 'space' are something, not nothing.
It is simply beyond current human ability to perceive nothing so how can we explain something coming from it? For me, this proves that any god posit is particularly OF THIS GAP, and is therefore a meaningless suggestion.
What is immaterial space?
I completely agree! and it would be so easy for an omnipotent entity to settle the evidence need that human science requires, so the fact it hasn't done so points toward its nonexistence.
Quoting Philosophim
Yes I agree but only after the moment of the 'singularity,' does causality have any meaning if there was no 'before,' no before time=0. I don't think it does, unless you start to posit something like the cyclical/bounce/oscillating Universe, as suggested by Roger Penrose et al and if you do that then any first cause may be pushed back forever. If that has value then each pushback reduces the relevance of any first cause to THIS UNIVERSE and the lifeforms in it.
Does it then not become valid to suggest that enough pushbacks and this first cause becomes as significant as that of some mindless spark that has no existence or significance at all to our current universe? For me, it would be like asking, 'in what ways does the singularity of the big bang affect my everyday life as a human? Should I worship the singularity? Does it have presence and influence today? Does it have willpower and does it have a code of life that it wants me to follow? Will it judge my life and does it have the power to decide if I will still exist after I die? Should I thank it for providing my food?'
I had read your OP when you first posted this thread. You use the label 'immaterial space,' and suggest it became 'actual space,' or I assume 'material space.' You then talked about Aristotelian and Kantian viewpoints in this area and make final comments such as:
Quoting val p miranda
Would you not agree that you are simply musing about what the truth of the origin story really is.
That's fine, as that's what we are all doing on this thread. But for me, your musings dont offer any progression as they are too general and lack details. For example.
You don't clearly define that which you label immaterial space. (Probably because no one can!) Is this a void that contains energy only?
If it's not physical, do you merely mean it has no mass or it is not what we would label 'natural' so it is unnatural, supernatural, metaphysical (in that it is beyond or before/after physics?
You give no indication of the process involved in immaterial space becoming actual space. You suggest it might be the big bang but then how did immaterial space produce the singularity?
What do you mean by 'space is not empirical?' do you mean we cannot find out what space IS by empirical means?
Space is not a perception! unless you think that our Universe is a simulation. Space exists.
A field exists, space can actually bend and expand based on the 'empirical evidence' we have.
So you are simply asking questions and probing the validity of current thinking regarding the origin story, as we all are, but the question remains, are we making any relevant progress? or are we merely just confirming our own current viewpoints to each other and confirming the fact that the final current truth for all of us is that none of us knows/can demonstrate what the origin story ACTUALLY IS, especially the theists. I say that, merely because I think science is the only practice that might actually make some real progress, in the future, on this fundamental question
Space is a fascinating concept. It definitely exists in our minds.
Has the material even been determined to exist in actuality? The answer to that may offer some clues.
Singularity is just a label for a collection of attributes such as infinite density, infinite energy concentration, unknown dimensionality/shape, defies the word 'size' etc but it's what the universe is posited as coming from. Did you mean to say that science is ONLY ABLE to proceed beyond the big band? We know absolutely nothing about what created the singularity or 'before' the big bang except for hypotheses such as the multiverse, the cyclic Universe, eternal inflation etc
Quoting val p miranda
You made that clear in your OP.
Humans cannot perceive the concept of 'nothing' but that alone is not proof that it does not and cannot exist.
Roger Penrose discusses the demise of our own Universe due to entropy. In the final stages, we are left with a Universe that has expanse, no mass, energy only. This would not match the concept of nothing, but Penrose then makes an excellent conceptual jump imo.
He posits that at that point, the term 'big' has no intrinsic meaning and it is equivalent to the term small or sizeless.
Under these conditions, time, maybe reset to 0 and all of the energy concentrate left in the Universe can be a singularity and cause a new big bang, or a new Universe to begin. He and his team believe they have found 6 'Hawking points,' which are areas of different temperatures within the cosmic microwave background radiation which are a result of a previous Universe cycle.
He has published papers that show that the evidence to back this up is very strong and he is still waiting for an adequate response from the current cosmology community.
What do you move in, if not space?
Sorry, I was just exercising my Cartesian doubt. It's fun to exercise the mind with such philosophical extremes. Movement is dependent on the concept of extension, and it requires the notion of duration to make it so. The big question is whether we apprehend these concepts from our experience, or project them onto our experience? Do we discover or create? Or if its a synthesis, what is the dynamic?
For you, is this the same question as, 'does the supernatural exist?' and 'does god exist?'
Can I scratch an annoying itch as well? based on your use of 'uncaused cause.' @jamal already raised a valid objection to my claim that it is a nonsense term but I would like to put it another way.
I can envisage an outcome having a cause.
I can even (if I suspend my critical and rational thinking) envisage a posit such as god or a 'first cause' or 'prime mover/agent' which is eternal and had no cause, so it is uncaused. But under what logic can you combine these two terms into uncaused cause? I don't understand why a bad phrase coined by a confused theist (only my opinion) such as Thomas Aquinas should still have any credence today.
Many terms used by people in the past were poorly formed by today's standards.
I feel a similar way, but perhaps not as intensely, towards your Aristotelian 'efficient cause' term.
I am not pushing a major gripe here, I am just trying to scratch an itch as I explained.
Especially after 10 good measures of a good peaty Scottish single malt such as Lagavulin, Laphroaig, Caol Ila, Ileach etc.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
But if extension and duration are not real then the only alternative is unreal or an emulation/simulation.
Are you just asking the question 'is the universe a simulation,' which if true means Descartes was wrong and we don't need to even consider solipsism. I don't think those who are simulated can ever find out the dynamic or the reasons/justifications of the simulators. This is similar to the theistic claim that we cannot know the mind of god but it also contradicts the Greek's assertion of cosmos or that the universe is knowable. Its also of course possible that we are the victims of nefarious powerful beings who have duped us into living as emulations/simulations (matrix movie-style)!
I don't see much difference between the plausibility of the tale told under the movie tile matrix and the tale told under the theistic titles 'bible,' 'quran,' 'torah,' 'bhagavad gita.' or 'fairy tales by Hans CHRISTIAN Anderson.'
That remains to be seen. The Aristotle apperception of an unmoved mover can still be applied. The unmoved mover being a physical entity.
The bible is the best-selling fiction novel ever! Still, how can we ever be sure of the non-existence of God? One might lay the burden of proof on the faithfully, but what if their default state is Gid+Universe. Why should they prove something in the first place? Does the atheist have to prove the non existence of God? Which would be rather difficult though. How you proof something doesn't exist?
:smile: Cudos for choosing a star wars handle and one of the most controversial characters amongst the star wars fans. Was that why you chose it?
Quoting Jarjar
I tend to agree with this. If they serialised it and stayed true to its content (especially the old testament), it would be far more disturbing that Games of Thrones ever was. This god character in the old testament is far nastier than most other characters I have read about in ancient or modern storytelling.
Quoting Jarjar
As an athiest, I cannot disprove the existence of god. Perhaps science will keep advancing the evidence against its existence, that's good enough for me because unless their god has the ability and the balls to show up and explain itself, theism is unlikely to produce any valid evidence in the future.
I think the burden of proof lies with theists as atheists have nothing to prove because to me, an atheist is just someone who says to all theists, I don't believe you, where is your proof?
Meantime, I for one, can match the vigour, conviction, determination, level of insistence and certainly the logic and rationale employed by theism, even the more energetic evanhellical versions.
I think that its their numbers that are reducing, especially amongst those who are getting increased access to personal education.
Global theism has been losing its power to influence and/or terrorise uneducated masses of people since the invention of the concept of education for all.
Well, what's in a name?
Quoting universeness
:lol:
Saw Ricky Gervais yesterday. He's got a way with atheism! Laughed my pants off!
God:
"Let's create AIDS creatures...
Don't like the sight of them gays in each other's a***s!"
God finished creating them
"So, little divine creature, when on Earth look for them gay a***s."
"Why why why?"
"Because that where they contact"
"Why why why?"
"They're weird! Don't like them! So enter and when a d***k enters jump in! But some must stay. If I know them well, surely another enters!"
"Yeaeaeaeahhhh....!"
What then are the rationale and logic behind theism? What's the rationale behind the divine spark, so to speak?
No rationale at all, just manifestations of wishful protections against primal fears.
Are these what you mean by rationale and logic behind theism? Protections of primal fears? How does God protect against primal fears?
You sound familiar!
Quoting Jarjar
Ask a theist, perhaps @hillary.
Who is @hilary?
A polytheist.
Because god is promoted as a superhero who cares about you and will look after you if you comply with its dictates.
Yes. Probably why there are so many comic book superhero movies.
Well some of the early gods have actually become comic-based superheros, such as Thor and the rest are based on classical or biblical characters such as Hercules...Samson....Goliath....being represented by characters like the hulk or the thing in the fantastic 4.
These fables do nonetheless certainly offer a nice easy way to make a good living for those who claim to speak in gods name, such as popes, priests, ministers, imams, rabbi's etc
Yes. "God told me to tell you...."
Yeah, they have even learned to shout from the pulpit as 'not god told me to' but god commanded me to and now he commands you to....
I caught an excerpt from an evanHELLical style TV channel recently and they were on 'fundraising' mode.
I could not believe the performance, they even brought in speaking in tongues.
It was a shocking litany of hard-sell tactics. At one point a vile preacher suggested that if people were struggling to decide between buying 'necessaries for themselves' or contributing to 'gods holy cause,' they must contribute to god almighty because that can help save their very soul!'
Utter nefarious b*******!
Years ago I talked to a priest about a religious issue. His only response was that my problem was being Protestant. I had to be Catholic. Helped me decide to drop Christianity altogethere.
Sounds about par for the course. Your response was the best response imo. :clap:
I never seem to run out of examples of nefarious theists and their nefarious deeds when theists claim that atheists cannot be moral individuals and want to act like animals in the jungle. :lol:
I reread your op. There are many possibilities as to how the world is actual. Kantian idealism can be seen as stating positing a pure Platonic world who's shadows are this world. For Kant, the mind alone finds these universals. So your "nothing" would be *this world*.
You need to offer more on your concept of 'immaterial space'. Your descriptions of it so far don't offer much. In what way is your immaterial space, natural. Especially considering the word is described as
referring to something of 'no importance' or, philosophically, as:
[i][b]spiritual, rather than physical.
"we have immaterial souls"
synonyms:
intangible · incorporeal · not material · bodiless · unembodied · disembodied · impalpable · ethereal · unsubstantial · insubstantial · airy · aerial · spiritual · ghostly · spectral · wraithlike · transcendental · unearthly · supernatural · discarnate · disincarnate · unbodied · phantasmal · phantasmic[/b][/i]
Quoting val p miranda
Just like that! Rabbit out of hat. No further explanation needed, or worth pursuing. Move along.
Aw! don't be a spoilsport Wayfarer. I like to follow the white rabbit and find out where it goes.
I have enjoyed exchanging with @val p miranda so far.
You choose one synonym from a list of synonyms, ALL of which are synonymous with the term immaterial. You conveniently ignore the synonym 'supernatural,' Do you ignore it because it is evidence against your suggestion that you can use the term 'Immaterial' to suggest something 'natural'?
Quoting val p miranda
Yet you just responded to @Gregory with:
Quoting val p miranda
Quoting val p miranda
In what way is current space transparent? I see the spacial volume in the room I am in while typing this text! If dark energy is correct then the vacuum of space produces energy. There is no example of an area of space studied by science where absolutely no activity has been encountered. Space/the void/the vacuum is absolutely broiling with quantum activity.
I think you are just 'battling' with the 'something cannot come from nothing' concept.
Have you read Laurence Krauss' book 'A Universe from nothing?'
Is there nothing in discussions like:
Which sate's your need to struggle/battle with the 'something from nothing' concept?
But what for you would be an example of a non-material existence? I take it you are not referring to massless existence such as energy or one of the energy-based lifeforms conjectured in sci-fi stories.
So what else can you be conceptualising in your head which is not in line with or at least strongly related to, a theistic/supernatural claim for the origin story of our Universe?
Do you think there is a panpsychist element to your viewpoint on the origin story in a similar vein to that held by @Jackson?
Quoting val p miranda
Thank you for your magnanimity. My intention is not to discomfort you, just to dialogue with your viewpoints.
Theists do that all the time. :smile:
But as you don't declare yourself a theist or a panpsychist and I am an atheist, I think it's time to say thanks for sharing your viewpoints with me on the origin story. I don't think we can take our interesting exchange any further as I don't think either of us will gain much more of value than we have already.
Lawrence Krauss believe nothing comes from nothing. The first nothing is the world, divided between positive reality and negative reality wherein each cancels the others, and the second nothing is spacetime. Having parts of reality canceling energy almost sounds like idealism however. If objects and ideas are not different in essence, then maybe you really can see a chair as existing even though it's energy is canceled by something else which is negative. I don't see how his thesis makes sense from a purely material perspective, but it's interesting
Mr Krauss has stated many times that 'nothing is the absence of something,' and the fact that the Universe is something then it follows that existence needs no first cause. If you have evidence of him writing or stating the words 'nothing comes from nothing,' then please provide the link.
Quoting Gregory
In what way is positive and negative charge, nothing?
Quoting Gregory
In what way is spacetime nothing. You need to appreciate that 'nothing' means no way to type/utter/think about the meaning of the term. It means no existence, so there is no way for it to define itself. I agree with those that suggest the concept denies its own existence and leads to the conclusion that 'something' is eternal. I think that 'eternal' is existence and is not god and needs no god.
Quoting Gregory
I think you are conflating matter-antimatter annihilation, with existence. The Universe has content because matter-antimatter annihilation is asymmetric. It produces 'leftovers.' This means chairs really do exist as do you and I.
Quoting Gregory
I think Krauss' book 'A Universe from nothing' makes a great deal of sense from a material perspective.
Quote actual words from it that you disagree with and we can dialogue about the quotes you choose if you want.
Well, agnosticism is a step up from convinced theist imo.
Of course, you are a Star Trek fan, as I am.
The Wikipedia article on "zero-energy universe" says that Krauss believes that the net energy of the universe is zero. It's not antimatter that is negative but gravity. Does this not ring a bell? I've seen many of his interviews but I don't have his book. My point was that it doesn't make much sense to say gravity and matter together is nothing unless you bring in some kind of idealism (like Hegel's). (Ideas can cancel out) Latter today I'll look more into this because it's so interesting. But does the zero energy universe ring a bell for you?
Ok, he says "Nothing can create something" but "something" is really nothing, even though "we live in a universe full of stuff". This is because:
"Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. And in fact when we look out at the universe and try and measure its total energy, we come up with zero."
Also:
"But, you know, it's more than that because some people would say, and I've had this discussion with theologians and others, well, you know, just empty space isn't nothing."
https://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing
So something is nothing and nothing is something. I am picking up Hegel's Logic right now to try and figure this out better
In the Science of Logic he criticizes the logic of Being and Nonbeing as opposites. Thus, the negation of Being is not Nonbeing but Nothingness.
Quoting Gregory
Yes, absolutely, 'positive' energy created by matter balancing with the 'negative,' energy created by gravity. This is backed up by most cosmologists today. I prefer the explanation in Stephen Hawkings in 'A Brief History of Time:' The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.
Many cosmologists/physicists argue that the evidence Krauss used to suggest that the total energy is zero was flawed, so they argue about some of his methodology but few argue with his conclusion so he is still correct and the calculations involved confirm the positive and negative energy balance.
Quoting Gregory
But they are not nothing, they DO NOT destroy each other as in matter/antimatter annihilation, they balance each other! The fact that their TOTALITY is ZERO does not remove them both from existence! The fact that they balance suggests that the 'existence' of the Universe is eternal. You cannot destroy energy, you can only change its form. Energy is conserved.
Existence balances and is eternal, there has never been 'nothing.'
This does not mean the Universe cannot 'bounce' between states of pure energy and energy becoming mass via M=E/Csquared and combining into galaxies and lifeforms until entropy returns everything back to energy etc. The bounce/oscillating Universe. No first cause is required, no something from nothing is required because 'nothing' is not a possible state for 'existence.' Something has always existed and I think this is the main message from Krauss and many others. The origin story was never a 'mind of god,' it was just a 'field of potential,' a mindless spark (singularity) which inflated.
This is the best science can do imo, at this present time and to me, it is far far more feasible to me than any supernatural 'god did it' proposal through its whim, its 'eternal intent of will' as claimed by theists, .
Science brought us to this point, theists have simply claimed everything science has 'found out so far' to be nothing more than humans learning a little more about the true mind/intent of god or how god did it. :lol: Yet they also contradict themselves with BS like 'god is outside of space and time' and 'you cannot know the mind of god.' Lazy excuses for accepting the musings of lazy thinkers who don't have the ability or can't be bothered to learn the science. (I am not putting you in this category.)
Quoting Gregory
I clicked on your link but I could not get passed the cookies window as I don't accept such cookies.
I don't see any value in your equivalence of something = nothing. Even if I accepted this point it would merely add to my position that 'something' has always existed as you are suggesting the two labels are synonymous so why would we not choose to drop the label 'nothing' as a valid label to use in the origin story of the universe. There was always something and that something was never the mind/will/intent of a god.
Is immaterial space a space without matter?
Is your space purely Kantian?
The something from nothing here is not a real something from nothing.
I can see similarities between the eternal circular motion Aristotle had in mind, or the unmoved mover, and your purely immaterial space before the big bang. It's a very reasonable position you hold here!
'Something,' is eternal in an oscillating Universe. You don't need to 'start' the oscillation if it is eternal and if you insist that you do then that's what I label the mindless spark which has no remaining existence and is of zero significance to THIS Universe. No god, no 'divine' spark required.
If the theists can logically insist on an eternal god then that idea is easily matched/equaled/balanced by the mindless spark and the eternally oscillating Universe, IMHO.
That is reasonable.
:up:
A mindless spark? How does that look like?
Without will or intent is how I would describe it. I have no idea how to provide you with an artist's impression/expression. I could offer images like a grain of sand or ask you to picture a quark or a superstring in your head but I don't think any such images are sufficient?
Do you need a picture of energy to accept energy exists?
The theist seems to accept the existence of their monotheistic god without any universally presented graven image. The polytheists have always had their graven images.
Well, I just made the bubbling quantum vacuum my avatar. It's a photograph though. Not a video.
and?
That's a picture of how it looks.
you mean it's an artist's impression of some colored shapes inside a space made up of little background squares which probably bear little resemblance to the actual broiling activity of the vacuum of space. I am not impressed nor do I now feel an imperative to draw you a picture of a mindless spark!
Nono! It's not meant to impress. If moving you see the mindless spark before your nose. Its still with us in the vacuum. Energy fluctuating all over space.
Thanks for the clrifications as to energy and existence. It seems to me you've adopted the method of Fetcher over that of the romantics by arguing from science to philosophy. Also, aren't you arguing from time and what is done in time to an eternalism that is foreign to our senses?
Such would not be the mindless spark I am referring to as my reference is merely a proposed conception for those who insist on a first cause in the origin of the universe story, that started the 'bounce,' i am simply applying the same 'special pleading' that theism uses to insist that god is eternal and needs no first cause. Well, I am suggesting that 'existence' or 'something' or 'energy' is eternal and needs no first cause and that the 'divine spark' can be replaced by the 'mindless spark' or god as the first cause which ends the infinite regress can also be a spark with no 'mind' or 'intent' behind it that no longer exists so it DOES NOT connect with your description of phenomena which DOES still exist.
My suggestion is that a god that STILL exists outside of space and time is total BS.
If such a 'prime mover,' 'trigger' did ever exist, it does not exist now and when it did, it was mindless and had no intent.
Yes, I argue from science and my own personal philosophy. I have an often admitted, limited academic command of philosophy, so I don't know who fletcher is/was or who the 'romantics are/were but I am willing to do some background reading on such, if you wish to link me to such, if you think any such reading would confirm or combat my viewpoints on the origin of our Universe story.
I think science can speak to the metaphysical suggestions posited by philosophy, in that science can suggest that which is labeled metaphysical, is simply a conflation or misunderstanding of the existence of that which human science cannot yet confirm/observe/detect, like dark matter or dark energy. You can label such, currently, as 'metaphysical,' in the sense that it's 'beyond' physics for now but it's stupid, imo to label the metaphysical as meaning 'after' physics as under that reference, the metaphysical does not exist as there is no such thing as 'after' physics.
I don't see why a 'bouncing' universe where as a consequence of each manifestation or new inflation/expansion, time or t is 'reset' to 0, is 'foreign to our senses', especially since time is relative and death is the end of all sensory experience but such experience can be reset. when birth causes new sensory experience or repetition of sensory experience for a 'new life,' in a similar conceptual way to a 'new universe.'
Sensory existence in the Universe has existed and does 'bounce' or 'oscillate' via death and birth since 'life' first sprang into existence from 'before' life or 'life' came from 'nonlife,' another example of how something can come into existence from before it existed but not from 'nothing.'.
Each manifestation of life, is, however, different from, or is a variety of, life, just as each new universe is different from any previous one.
Ok, I thought you were arguing for B time. Einstein thought time was an illusion because of his understanding of general relativity. Time is a very difficult subject because you understand it until you have to explain it. The romantics I referred to were the German idealists after Kant. Fetchner was one but argued for much of the same thing from science itself. So, I think that the world is spiritual but 1) science can't say anything about spirituality, and 2) a materialist viewpoint is self consistent but incomplete. All that exists is this world, matter is real, and matter and the spirit are identical. Are you open to these ideas? I see the world and know it's just as I see it (objectively), but paradoxically I don't know what it is yet. Not until I complete my life on earth will I know full reality. Maybe a materialistic spirituality is possible!
I think time is the world acting spiritually
I don't think you can prove time is real from motion and matter alone. Heidegger's philosophy does a lot in the way of bringing the mind to time and it's manifestation
Of course. What do you think of Kant's time as intuition?
What meaning are you assigning to the word 'spirituality?'
The original meaning simply referred to 'to move' or 'to be animate.'
But now it's related to words such as 'soul' or a noncorporeal existence or a ghostly presence etc.
I assume you are referring to its more recent meanings than its original one.
If that is the case then it holds no meaning for me personally at all.
Science can state a very basic comment regarding the 'soul' or 'spiritual' references that are used today and that is that there is no proof such proposals have any existence, at all. This is my position as well.
I agree that a materialist viewpoint is incomplete as science is incomplete but science is still working on gaining new knowledge so I remain a confident materialist and I reject anything labeled supernatural or even metaphysical. Can you offer me an example of what you would consider 'matter' and 'spirit' and are 'identical?' It would need to be an example I have never conceived of before as I would reject any suggestions like consciousness or contrived 'hippy style' phrases such as 'the essence/source of the 'force' of nature etc. I am not open to theosophist ideologies such or Buddism, Taoism etc.
I think your last few sentences above are nice and I feel a great sense of common ground with the underlying sentiments you present. I too have a great sense of wonder about the basics.
Who am I REALLY? Why am I here? What is my ultimate fate? I also am attracted to the basic theistic tenet that humans are of great significance to the Universe as WE give IT significance and meaning because we ask questions and through us, the universe may be trying to emerge/gain objective knowledge of who, why, and what it is. This is why I raise a tiny eyebrow towards the idea that panpsychism is an emerging universal consciousness but I consider panpsychism to be compatible with the materialist viewpoint and could be part of that 'incompleteness' you cite but I have very little confidence, at the moment, that it is a valid proposal.
I am also very much in agreement with Carl Sagans 'great demotions,' when it comes to humans thinking about how important they may be.
I remain 99.9% convinced that labels such as 'supernatural,' 'metaphysical,' 'spiritual,' 'soul,' etc are vacant of all useful meaning at the moment and need reassignment to more useful and accurate meanings.
No harm in trying though!
Indeed!
Ok but these, in my humble opinion, are only substitutes for nothing, like trick shots in pool; they're not the real McCoy if you catch my drift.
That said, they're close enough for government work, oui monsieur? Something is better than nothing although there's a clear and present danger that we maybe led astray by these (imperfect) clones.